FCC Web Documents citing 1.719

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1662A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 3, 2001. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainant's service, Qwest's response indicates that Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1663A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to Talk.com without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk.com of the complaint and Talk.com responded on April 2, 2001. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized charge in the Complainant's service, Talk.com's response indicates that Talk.com has fully absolved Complainant of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1664A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2001 alleging that Complainant's interLATA service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 14, 2001. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized carrier change, WorldCom indicates in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1665A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaint on February 26, 2001 alleging that the Complainants' intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without the Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 26, 2001. Sprint concedes that it did not have the requisite authority to switch Complainant's telecommunications services, and states that the switch occurred as the result of a keying error. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's intraLATA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1666A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 2, 2001. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainant's service, Qwest indicates in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed in connection with the change in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1667A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on June 1, 2001. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized carrier change, Business Options indicates in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1668A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P., (Sprint) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 7, 2001. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1888A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Qwest states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1889A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Talk.com without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk.com of the complaints and Talk.com responded. Talk.com states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Talk.com in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-1891A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2256A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint's responses indicate that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2346A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Business without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaints and Business responded. Business' responses indicate that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Business in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2347A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel's responses indicate that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Excel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2348A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Talk in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2370A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded. QuantumLink's response indicates that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by QuantumLink in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2371A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded. Broadwing's response indicates that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Broadwing in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2470A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2596A1.txt
  • that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. With respect to each of the complaints, AT&T denies that it changed the complainant's service without the requisite authorization and provided evidence of a third party verification process which AT&T states confirms the Complainants' authorization to change to AT&T. Upon review of the information provided in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2683A1.txt
  • require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded. Broadview's response indicates that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Broadview in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2684A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Qwest's responses indicate that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2738A1.txt
  • that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2849A1.txt
  • carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance carriers had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. and Airnex Communications to Eschelon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Eschelon of the complaint and Eschelon responded on September 17, 2001. Eschelon states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Eschelon in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2850A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providersshad been changed to Broadwing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaints and Broadwing responded. Broadwing states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Broadwing in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2851A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to LDCBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCBC of the complaint and LDCBC responded on June 15, 2001. LDCBC states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LDCBC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2861A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1000A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on May 16, 2001. IDT has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by IDT in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1001A1.txt
  • to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on June 21, 2001. Primus states that the change in Complainant's service provider was due to a keying error. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus' actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1002A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 21, 2001. Excel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Excel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1003A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Opex Communications (Opex) to Close Call without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Close Call of the complaint and Close Call responded on August 16, 2001. Close Call responded with no supporting evidence, such as a letter of authorization or a recording from a third party verifier. We find that Close Call has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1004A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 3, 2001. Cox states that due to an unplanned system equipment failure the third party verifier was unable to complete the verification process. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1013A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to Worldcom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Worldcom of the complaints and Worldcom responded. Worldcom states that the changes to Complainants' telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Worldcom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as require by our rules. We find that Worldcom has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1014A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 16, 2001. Sprint states that they received a letter of authorization (LOA) signed by another consumer but with the Complainant's address and telephone number. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1015A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 18, 2001. Qwest states in its response that Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1081A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from NTS/MIDCOM to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 16, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's long distance service was switched because their verifier ``did not follow the proper procedures.'' We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1082A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 2, 2001. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1083A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll services had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on April 9, 2001. Z-Tel states that the Complainant's local and intraLATA toll services were switched due to an error. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1128A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2001 alleging that complainant's local toll and intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Verizon to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on July 9, 2001. Allegiance provided a Letter of Agency with a valid signature authorizing the change of service provider. We find that Allegiance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1129A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 31, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 2, 2001. Qwest states that Complainant authorized the conversion of their long distance service. Qwest's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1130A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 12, 2001. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly switched due to information given by one of their business customers. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1131A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 12, 2001. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was added to another customer's account as the result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1132A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 27, 2001. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was switched when another consumer signed a letter of authorization (LOA) and provided Complainant's telephone number. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1133A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance had been changed from ACC/Vista to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 2, 2001. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1139A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. WorldCom responded that the Complainant authorized the charge. Worldcom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1177A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on June 15, 2001. MetTel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through Third Party Verification. MetTel's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Therefore, MetTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1178A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 21, 2002. LCR states that the recording of the third party verification process was inaudible and destroyed. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1179A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 26, 2001. RCN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1180A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Communicate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communicate of the complaint and Communicate responded on April 12, 2002. Communicate states that after examination of the letter of agency it was determined that a processing error may have resulted in Complainant's services being changed. We find that Communicate has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1218A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from LDMI Telecommunications (LDMI) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 5, 2001. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1219A1.txt
  • rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 17, 2001. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1220A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's long distance provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom's without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom's of the complaints and WorldCom's responded. WorldCom states that in both of the above referenced cases, WorldCom switched the incorrect telephone numbers. We find that WorldCom's has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1326A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Transpoint Communications (Transpoint) to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on March 21, 2002. Global has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1327A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on April 24, 2002. Advantage states that Complainant's service was changed due to an error in data entry. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-133A1.txt
  • to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Global Crossing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global Crossing of the complaint and Global Crossing responded on August 15, 2001. Global Crossing states in its response that Global Crossing has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1392A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that when it reviewed Complaints' third party verification tapes, there was some confusion on the part of the Complainants. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1393A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization to change Complainant's telecommunications service providers was obtained through third party verification or internet access. Talk was unable to provide copies of the third party verification or copies of a LOA with an electronic signature. Talk has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1394A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance had been changed from Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) and America On-Line (AOL) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 17, 2001. RCN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1395A1.txt
  • and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance service providers had been changed from Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on January 14, 2002. RCN reviewed the letter of agency that it used to change Complainant's service providers, and the complaint filed by Complainant, and determined that the signatures do not match. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1396A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to Quantrex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quantrex of the complaint and Quantrex responded on October 19, 2001. Quantrex states that Complainant's service was switched due to a computer error. We find that Quantrex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Quantrex' actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1397A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Unitel to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on August 3, 2001. Network stated that the Complainant's service was switched due to a provisioning error. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Network's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1398A1.txt
  • carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on October 29, 2001. McLeod states that Complainant's telephone number was given to McLeod from a business along with a list of other telephone numbers to be converted over to their system. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1399A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Unitel to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on April 2, 2002. BSP states Complainant's service was mistakenly acquired when converting over another company's database. We find that BSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BSP's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1400A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on January 22, 2002. Cox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cox's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Therefore, Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1401A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on April 16, 2002. McLeod states that after reviewing the letter of agency, the signatures appear to be different. McLeod therefore, is unable to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that McLeod's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1421A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. Z-Tel provided a third party verification recording which authorized Z-Tel to become the Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1450A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. In the above referenced cases, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service provider. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1451A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on June 12, 2001. Global states that when consolidating two databases into one single database, the complainant's ANI was inadvertently presubscribed to Global. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1467A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BOI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOI of the complaints and BOI responded. Complainants state that BOI's sales representative claimed to be calling from their local phone company. BOI's response does not provide any evidence to refute this claim. We find that BOI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1492A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NALD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD indicates that authorization was received when Complainants visited their web site and completed a sign up page. NALD's consent form, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1493A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 2, 2002. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1527A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Ameritech-Illinois (Ameritech) to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on March 26, 2001. Lightyear provided a copy of a signed letter of agency for our review. However, after reviewing the letter of authorization, the signature does not seem to be the signature of Complainant. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1528A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to NAC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAC of the complaint and NAC responded on June 12, 2001. NAC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NAC's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. NAC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1529A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that due to data entry errors, orders were submitted to convert Complainants' service to Talk. We find Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1581A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from authorized carrier to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on January 2, 2002. NALD indicates that authorization was received when Complainants visited their web site and completed a sign up page. NALD's consent form, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1583A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corp. (AT&T) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on March 19, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's third party verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Therefore, Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1584A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded. Talk states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched as a result of other customers signing and cashing promotional checks with Complainants' telephone numbers on it. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1585A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 17, 2001. Talk states that due to a data entry error, an order was submitted to reinstate Complainants service. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1586A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization to change Complainants' telecommunications service was received via their Website. Talk, however, could not provide a copy of Complainant's electronic signatures as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1587A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 25, 2002. Talk indicates that due to an error on the part of its third party verifier, the order should have been voided and never processed. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1596A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on September 26, 2001. Allegiance has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1597A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2001, alleging that Complainant's international long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant's wife authorized the conversion of both the local toll and long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, did not obtain authorization to change Complainant's international long distance as required by our rules. According to our rules, a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1600A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T acknowledges that the Complainants' telecommunications services were switched due to various errors on the part of AT&T or its third party verifiers. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1601A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has submitted the third party verification for each Complainant. However, the verifier failed to confirm that the people on the verification recordings were authorized to make a carrier change as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1602A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 16, 2002. AT&T's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1603A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded. AT&T acknowledges that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched as a result of various errors on the part of AT&T or its third party verifiers. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1604A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that the Complainants' telecommunications services were switched when someone other than Complainants cashed the promotional check. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1605A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded. AT&T states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched by someone cashing the promotional checks. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1631A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 25, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, during the third party verification process, when asked if Complainant was authorized to change telecommunications service providers, Complainant clearly said no. We find that Talk has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1632A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed due to data entry errors. We find Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1633A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 8, 2001. Talk states that a recent update of database files in their system inadvertently re-processed Complainant's telephone number causing his service to be reinstated. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1634A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 9, 2001. Talk states that Complainant was billed in error. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1635A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on June 14, 2001. eLec indicates authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. When reviewing the third party verification tape the voice of the complainant could not be heard. We find that eLec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1636A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 16, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Talk also states that they are unable to provide a copy of the third party verification. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1637A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 13, 2001. Talk states that Complainant's service was changed due to a processing error in canceling a pending service order. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1638A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 30, 2002. LCR states that a clerical error caused Complainant's service to be changed. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1639A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on March 22, 2002. Vox indicates that Complainant signed a letter of agency authorizing a change in service. Vox's letter of authorization, however, fails to confirm that Complainant understands that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1640A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on July 1, 2002. Allegiance states that a keypunch error was made inputting the complainant's choices into the system and the complainant's interLATA choice was incorrectly shown as Allegiance. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1641A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on April 24, 2002. Axces states that Complainant's service was changed due to a processing error. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Axces's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1642A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LLD of the complaint and LLD responded on May 3, 2002. LLD states that when transferring their customer database to another wholesaler, Complainant's service was inadvertently changed. We find that LLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LLD's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1660A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed its authorized carrier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 12, 2001. It appears, from AT&T's response, that Complainant did not realize he was switching his service to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1661A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier.Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001, alleging that complainant's telecommunications provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 19, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant is not disputing having service with AT&T, but is complaining only that AT&T did not switch the Complainant's service to Worldcom in a timely manner. As AT&T is not responsible for initiating a carrier change away from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1662A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided third party verification recordings which authorized AT&T to become Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1663A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed its authorized carrier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 11, 2002. AT&T states that due to a data processing error, Complainant's long distance service was switched. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1684A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has provided the appropriate documentation to show that Complainants authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1685A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Direct One without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Direct One of the complaint and Direct One responded on October 19, 2001. Direct One did not provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of authorization. We find that Direct One has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Direct One's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1686A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1715A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 7, 2001. Talk states that authorization to change Complainant's telecommunications service was received via their Website. Talk, however, could not provide a copy of Complainants electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1716A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 28, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1717A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when other consumers inadvertently signed and cashed promotional checks with Complainants' telephone numbers on them. Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1718A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carrier should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services had been changed to ServiSense without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ServiSense of the complaint and ServiSense responded on June 1, 2001. ServiSense indicates that authorization was obtained when Complainant signed a Letter of Authorization (LOA). However, after review of ServiSense' LOA, we find that it does not contain clear and unambiguous language that confirms that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1719A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to National without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National of the complaint and National responded on July 1, 2002. National, however, could not provide a copy of Complainant's electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that National has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that National's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1737A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 26, 2001. AT&T states that the third party verifier spoke with the Complainant's son who authorized the switch. The Complainant states that the Complainant's son was not authorized to make such a choice. In addition AT&T's third party verifier asked the complainant's son if
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1738A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T was unable to provide letters of authorization or third party verification recordings as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1739A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided third party verification recordings which authorized AT&T to become Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1742A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1797A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency for each Complainant. They did not include electronic signatures as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NAI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1798A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication services had been changed to IEcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IEcom of the complaint and IEcom responded on October 1, 2001. IEcom states that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization from Complainant. We find that IEcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IEcom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1799A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Mpower without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mpower of the complaint and Mpower responded on February 20, 2002. Mpower states that the service was inadvertently changed when it received an order to change a list of numbers for another customer. The Complainant's number was on that list in error. We find that Mpower has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1800A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company to CBP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBP of the complaint and CBP responded on March 29, 2002. CBP`s response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that CBP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1801A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company to CBP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBP of the complaint and CBP responded on March 29, 2002. CBP's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that CBP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1802A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP's responses indicates that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were mistakenly switched after their numbers were acquired from another company's customer database. We find that BSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BSP's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1803A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on March 19, 2002. BSP's response indicates that it has failed to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that BSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1804A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on September 4, 2001. BSP response indicates that the Complainant authorized it to switch BSP's long distance service. The third party verification tape, however, indicates that the Complainant only authorized BSP to change Complainant's intraLATA toll service. We find that BSP has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1808A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that in each of the above cited cases the calls in question were casual calls and, thus, would not be considered a carrier change violation. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1819A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 14, 2002. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1820A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WebNet without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaints and WebNet responded. WebNet indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, WebNet was unable to provide a recording of the verification as required by our rules. WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1821A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to National without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National of the complaints and National responded. National indicates that authorization was received when Complainants visited their web site and completed a sign up page. National's electronic letter of agency, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that National has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1822A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on April 1, 2001. eLec indicates authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. eLec's third party verifier, however, did not record an answer when the Complainant was asked to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1823A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on May 17, 2001. eLec indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, the telephone number given on the third party verification is not the telephone number of the complainant. We find that eLec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1824A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 24, 2001. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk's verifier, however, did not confirm that the person on the call was authorized to change intraLATA service on the phone number in question as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1825A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 28, 2001. Talk states that due to a data entry error, an order was submitted to convert Complainant's service to Talk. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1838A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 7, 2001. Talk states that Complainants service was changed when another customer provided his telephone number through third party verifications. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1839A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 19, 2002. Talk indicated that Complainant authorized Talk to switch one of Complainant's lines via a letter of authorization and a second line through third party verification. The third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1840A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 30, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Talk's third party verification recording, however, was inaudible. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1841A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 14, 2001. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, did not receive authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA toll service. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1842A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on January 11, 2002. NALD indicates that authorization was received when Complainant visited their web site and completed a sign up page. NALD's consent form, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1843A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on November 14, 2001. CWC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. CWC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched. The verifier also failed to receive authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1851A1.txt
  • actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 2, 2002. Advantage states that the conversion was due to a data entry problem. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1902A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to NAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaint and NAI responded on February 10, 2002. NAI has submitted an electronic filing as a letter of agency for the Complainant. The letter of agency did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1903A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech Wisconsin to BOI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOI of the complaint and BOI responded on September 24, 2001 and April 26, 2002. BOI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The verifier however, failed to confirm that the Complainant was authorized to switch telecommunication service providers as required by our rules. We find that BOI has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1904A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Yestel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaints and Yestel responded. Yestel acknowledges that the Complainants' telecommunication services were switched due to provisioning errors. We find that Yestel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Yestel's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1905A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant of Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Summit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Summit of the complaint and Summit responded on September 6, 2001. Summit states that a letter of agency was submitted by Complainant. The letter of agency was not dated as required by our rules. We find that Summit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1906A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC has submitted third party verification for each Complainant. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on each call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1907A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on November 6, 2001. Z-Tel states that the Complainant's service was switched without authorization due to an error. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-1908A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 25, 2002. CTS indicates that the Complainant's number was switched due to a data processing error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2042A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided third party verification recordings which authorized AT&T to become the Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2043A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. According to AT&T's responses, Complainants' telecommunications services were switched when the previous users of the Complainants' numbers cashed promotional checks. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2044A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Corporation to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 9, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched due to an inbound call in which a third party verification was completed. AT&T's third party verifier failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2045A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. Z-Tel has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency for each Complainant. They did not include the signature as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2048A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 22, 2001. LCR states that they used a third party verification company to verify the conversion of Complainant's long distance service. LCR's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2069A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk obtained authorization through third party verification or signed letter of agency (LOA). We find that the third party verifications and signed LOA's were all in accordance of our rules. Therefore, we find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2086A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses indicate that it is unable to provide third party verifications as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2182A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on July 2, 2001. Vox has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2183A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Excel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2184A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 30, 2001. Sprint states that the complainant's telephone number was added to an account of another Sprint customer due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2185A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 4, 2002. Sprint states that the complainant's telephone numbers were added to an account of another Sprint customer based on an order placed by that customer. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2186A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Coporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 22, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's account was installed based on incorrect telephone number information submitted to Sprint from another customer. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2187A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 3, 2002. Sprint states that they were unable to retrieve authorization information. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 21, 2001. Sprint states that the account was established based on an outbound sales call to the complainant, but they were unable to retrieve authorization information. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2189A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 22, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Sprint could not locate and provide a copy of the third party verification as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2190A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 6, 2001. Sprint states that Complainant's service was mistakenly added to the account of another Sprint customer. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2191A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 4, 2002. Sprint states that research confirmed that the account was established fraudulently by someone other than Complainant. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2192A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CGI Long Distance (CGI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 30, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2194A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape for each Complainant. In each case, AT&T's third party verifier failed to confirm that the person who agreed to the switch was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2195A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T indicates that a third party verifier received and confirmed the Complainants' verifications. The verifier however, failed to confirm that the people who agreed to the carrier changes were authorized to make these changes as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2196A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 25, 2002. AT&T indicates in its response that the Complainant submitted a letter of agency. The letter of agency, on the back of the check, provided a block to change the phone number to be switched to the number designated by the Complainant. When
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2197A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2000, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 29, 2001. AT&T states that the telecommunications service was switched due to an inbound call in which a third party verification was completed. AT&T's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2198A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if arranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on September 14, 2001. Z-Tel has provided a third party verification recording which authorized Z-Tel to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2209A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on March 7, 2002. RCN states that Complainant's service was solicited by a telemarketing firm. RCN, however, has failed to provide a third party verification tape as required by Commission rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2210A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 14, 2001. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2327A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 4, 2001. Qwest states that Complainant's service was changed when information was entered incorrectly into their database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2328A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed form AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Alliance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Alliance of the complaint and Alliance responded on August 2, 2001. Alliance states that the complainant's telephone number was verified under a business account. We find that Alliance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Alliance's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2329A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that they are unable to produce valid letters of agency or third party verification tapes as proof of authorization for these carrier changes. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2330A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 22, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2359A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on October 4, 2001. Axces indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Axces' verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change and failed to confirm any of the telephone numbers to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2360A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossings Telecommunications, Inc. (Global) to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on March 1, 2002. NALD indicates that authorization was received when Complainant visited their web site and completed a sign page. NALD's consent form, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2362A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to Summit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Summit of the complaint and Summit responded on July 20, 2001. Summit states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that Summit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Summit's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2369A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Qwest states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2370A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on January 15, 2002. Comcast states that the Complainant's service was changed due to human error. Verification of a switch in service must comply with Commission's rules. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2371A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2001 alleging that complainant's local and intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Verizon to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on June 26, 2001. We find that eLec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2372A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 30, 2001. Qwest states that Complainant authorized the conversion of their long distance service. Qwest's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2373A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on April 11, 2002. McLeod states that a clerical error caused the Complainant's service to be switched. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeod's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2376A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 9, 2002 AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2377A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) and Verizon to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on November 5, 2001. Allegiance states that they are unable to provide a copy of a signed letter of agency or similar instrument. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Allegiance's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2378A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (BellSouth) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2002 WorldCom states that the switch in service was due to a data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2379A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 24, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2526A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 11, 2001. RCN indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed by Complainant and submitted. RCN's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or interLATA toll service, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2527A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 20, 2001. Talk did not provide a copy of a Letter of Agency nor a third party verification tape, as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2528A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications (Primus) to ComTech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ComTech of the complaint and ComTech responded on April 22, 2002. ComTech did not provide a copy of a Letter of Agency nor a third party verification tape, as required by our rules. We find that ComTech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2627A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Savings Plan without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaints and Business Savings Plan responded. Business Savings Plan indicates that they mistakenly changed long distance for the account after acquiring it from another company's customer base they purchased. We find that Business Savings Plan has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2628A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Communicate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communicate of the complaint and Communicate responded on September 16, 2002. Communicate states that Complainant's telephone number was switched as the result of a keying error. We find that Communicate has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Communicate's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2629A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ADST's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, nor confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2630A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. WCSS's verifications, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm that the person on the call that wanted to make the carrier change, nor confirm the types of services involved
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2636A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Expanets to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on June 6, 2002. Network states that authorization was given when Complainant signed a letter of agency (LOA). However, Network could not provide a copy of the signed LOA. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2637A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS' verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold and to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2638A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. CTS states that the requests for service were confirmed by a signed letters of agency (LOA). Upon examination of the LOA's, however, CTS has determined that unintentional data processing errors occurred while inputting the telephone numbers into its system. We find that CTS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2639A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech and Sonix4U (Sonix) to LDMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDMI of the complaint and LDMI responded on September 10, 2002. LDMI states that a letter of agency (LOA) was provided to LDMI by an independent agent. After review of the LOA, it was determined that it had not been signed by the complainant. We find that LDMI has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2640A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications (011) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on August 13, 2002. McLeod indicates that after researching the account they are unable to determine how they acquired the complainant as a customer. In addition, McLeod states that they are unable to locate a letter of agency or a third party verification tape. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2641A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI indicates that authorization was received when Complainants visited their web site and completed a sign up page. NAI's consent form, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2642A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, LCR could not locate copies of the third party verifications. LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2643A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on June 10, 2002. APS states that when switching Complainant's long distance service, a system error caused Complainant's intraLATA toll service to be switched as well. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2644A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 2, 2002. UKI indicates authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2645A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on April 12, 2002. IDT states that another IDT customer who was signing up for IDT's service via their website, unintentionally typed the complainant's telephone number. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2646A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to C&W without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified C&W of the complaint and C&W responded on May 14, 2002. C&W states that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently included in a batch transaction. We find that C&W has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that C&W's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2647A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 23, 2002. Talk states that Complainants' service was changed due to a processing error. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2648A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk indicates authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2649A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Isterra to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 26, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, Talk could not provide a recorded copy of the third party verification. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2650A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 21, 2002. Talk states that another customer signed and cashed a direct mailer promotional check with Complainant's telephone number on it. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2651A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 26, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. During the verification process, however, Complainant stated to the verifier he wanted to stop the order and have his daughter call back. We find that Talk has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2652A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec Telecom, Inc. (Vartec) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 22, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's account was added to the Sprint network as the result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2653A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 30, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received when Complainant signed a letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA was attached to a rebate form. Our rules state that an LOA shall not be combined on the same document, screen, or webpage with inducements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2654A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint states that the account was established based upon information submitted during a telephone call to a Sprint PCS store. However, the customer never went to the Sprint PCS store to sign the letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2655A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 19, 2002. Sprint they received a letter of agency (LOA) with an electronic signature authorizing carrier change. Sprint stated that it determined that the person who signed the LOA is not the owner of the complainant's telephone number. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2656A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Communicate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communicate of the complaint and Communicate responded on September 16, 2002. Communicate states that Complainant's telephone number was switched as the result of a keying error. We find that Communicate has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Communicate's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2657A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on April 18, 2002. 011 stated that the Complainant authorized the change in services. 011's third party verifier, failed to elicit the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that 011 failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2658A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider service had been changed from AT&T to UKI without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on November 29, 2001. UKI states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. UKI' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2659A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to Local Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Local Long Distance of the complaint and Local Long Distance responded on August 20, 2002. Local Long Distance states that a data entry error caused the Complainant's long distance services to be switched. We find that Local Long Distance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2660A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2660 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP's responses indicated that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were mistakenly switched after their numbers were acquired from another company's customer database. We find that BSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BSP's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2661A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2661 4. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint to CCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCI of the complaint and CCI responded on July 7, 2001. CCI states that Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly switched. We find that CCI failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2662A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint October 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to American without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified American of the complaint and American responded on February 7, 2002. American indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. American's verifications, however, did not confirm the Business Name, address, and telephone numbers to be switched, nor did they confirm that the person on the call was authorized to change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2677A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 6, 2002. LCR states that due to an administrative error, Complainant's lines were switched. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2678A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance and local toll service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 3, 2002. WCSS states that Complainant authorized the change in services. WCSS' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2679A1.txt
  • actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Corporation (Sprint) and Spring Communications Company LP (Sprint LP) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 13, 2001. Qwest states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. Qwest's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2680A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Globalcom Communications (Globalcom) and Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on July 26, 2002. McLeod states that Complainant's service was accidentally brought back to McLeod. McLeod has failed to produce either a valid letter of agency or third party verification recording as required by Commission rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2681A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) and Verizon to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on March 25, 2002. TeleUno states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. TeleUno's third-party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2682A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Verizon to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on August 26, 2002. ADST stated that the Complainant authorized the change in service. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2683A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) had been changed from Qwest to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on July 9, 2002. UKI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI's third-party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2684A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded. In each of the above mentioned cases, WebNet states that the Complainants authorized the conversion of their service. WebNet's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. In their response, WebNet states that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2685A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Global Crossing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 30, 2002. WorldCom states that they were unable to determine exactly how the account in question was converted as the account notations were purged. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2686A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon and Global Crossing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the conversion of both the intraLATA toll and long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2687A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 28, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2688A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that someone identified as the Complainant authorized the change of service in each of the above referenced complaints. In their response, WorldCom states that the conversions of each Complainant's service was due to errors on the part of WorldCom. We find that WorldCom has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2689A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Birch Telecom (Birch) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 30, 2001. WorldCom states that they did not receive cancellation orders from the local telephone company until September 27, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2698A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 7, 2002. AT&T indicates in its response that the Complainant's local and intralata toll service was switched when the third party verifier, during a sale of service for another subscriber, inadvertently included the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2699A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T acknowledges that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched as a result of various errors. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2700A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Corporation to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 29, 2002. AT&T states that the Complainant's telecommunications service was switched when a person who previously had Complainant's number cashed a promotional check. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2701A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 20, 2002. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as an authorization to switch the service. According to the tape, Complainant did not authorize the switch for intralata toll service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2702A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2703A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. According to AT&T's responses, Complainants' telecommunications services were switched when people other than the Complainants cashed the promotional checks. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2704A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 18, 2002. AT&T submitted a signed letter of agency with the number of the Complainant on the check. The name on the check, however, was not the billing name for the telephone number on the check. We find that AT&T has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2705A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 16, 2002. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as an authorization for the switch in service. The person on the tape is a renter in the house owned by the Complainant. AT&T switched the Complainant's phone line instead of the line for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2706A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 6, 2002. AT&T states that it mistakenly converted the Complainant's number when switching several numbers for another company. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2707A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided the proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized AT&T to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2708A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 16, 2002. Sprint states the switch occurred due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2709A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on September 14, 2001. Z-Tel has submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, the Complainant authorized local service only from Z-Tel. Z-Tel has also been providing intralata toll and long distance service to the Complainant. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2710A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on September 12, 2001. Z-Tel indicates in its response that the Complainant submitted a letter of agency. After further review, Z-Tel determined that it did not have appropriate authorization to convert the number. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2711A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2001, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 17, 2001. Z-Tel has provided the proper letter of agency which authorized Z-Tel to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2712A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on October 19, 2001. Z-Tel indicates in its response that the Complainant submitted a letter of agency. The name on the letter of agency differs from the Complainant's and was also signed by someone else. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2713A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on October 9, 2001. Axces has submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape the Complainant did not authorize a switch in his intralata toll service. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2714A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. CTS provided the proper letters of agency which authorized CTS to become the Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that CTS' actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2715A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service had been changed from Eastern Telecommunications (Eastern) to Adelphia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Adelphia of the complaint and Adelphia responded on October 1, 2001. Adelphia states that a letter of agency was submitted by Complainant. The letter of agency, however, failed to confirm that subscriber understands that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's preferred interstate or interlata carrier for any one telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2724A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 25, 2001. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was inputted into their system as the result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2725A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 16, 2002. Sprint states the switch occurred due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2726A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on August 27, 2002. Clear World indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Clear World's verification, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clear World has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2727A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CloseCall without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on August 27, 2002. CloseCall states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. CloseCall's letter of authorization, however, fails to include most of the authorization and verification information required by our rules. We find that CloseCall
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2728A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings of the complaint and Business Savings responded on September 9, 2002. Business Savings states complainant's telecommunications service provider was mistakenly changed after acquiring another company's customer base. We find that Business Savings has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Business
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2729A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 5, 2002. Broadview states that complainant's service was inadvertently transferred back to them due to a scheduled migration in service. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadview's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2730A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on September 3, 2002. OneStar states that due to a switching error customer's telephone number was mistakenly switched. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneStar's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2782A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from 011 Communications and Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on April 22, 2002. McLeod states that they are unable to locate a letter of agency or third party verification recording for Complainant. McLeod has failed to provide a valid letter of agency or TPV as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2783A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on March 12, 2001. VarTec's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for the change of Complainant's intraLATA service. We find that VarTec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2784A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Opex Communications (Opex) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 2, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom has failed to provide a valid TPV or letter of authorization as required by our rules. Further, after review of the TPV, it was clear that Complainant wanted to change to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2858A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on January 14, 2002. Ameritech's letter of agency, however, did not confirm that subscribers' may consult Ameritech as to whether a fee will apply as required by our rules. We find that Ameritech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2859A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 23, 2001. Qwest states that complainant`s telecommunications service provider was verified by a third party verification company. Qwest's third party verifier, however, failed to verify the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2860A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Network One to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 24, 2002. Qwest states Complainant's telephone number was switched due to an order entry error. Therefore, we find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2861A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on September 16, 2002. Broadwing states that complainants' telephone number was erroneously included in a batch order, which resulted in an unauthorized switch. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2862A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST states that the changes to Complainants' telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2887A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on September 7, 2001. McLeod indicates that authorization was received when a signed a letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. McLeod also states that one of their customers mistakenly included Complainant's phone numbers when establishing service with McLeod. We find that McLeod has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2888A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on September 21, 2001. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainant and submitted. Allegiance's LOA, however failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA preferred interexchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2889A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 12, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received through letter of agency (LOA). However, Sprint could not locate a copy of the signed LOA. Therefore, we find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2890A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 16, 2002. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS' verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold and to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2891A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on August 8, 2002. Business indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification, but could not locate a copy of the recording. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2938A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from The Phone Company to Cable & Wireless without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cable & Wireless of the complaint and Cable & Wireless responded on May 22, 2002. Cable & Wireless stated that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently transposed. We find that Cable & Wireless has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cable & Wireless's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2939A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, nor confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2940A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on August 6, 2002. Americatel stated that the Complainant was billed in error. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Americatel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2941A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on September 3, 2002. WebNet stated that Complainant authorized the change in service. WebNet's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2942A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance services had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to New Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on October 14, 2001. New Access states that Complainant authorized the change in services. New Access' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that New Access has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2943A1.txt
  • this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Corporation (Sprint) and Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint LP) to Local Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Local Long Distance of the complaint and Local Long Distance responded on May 6, 2002. Local Long Distance states that complainant was inadvertently switched back to their service. We find that Local Long Distance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on April 8, 2002. RCN is unable to provide any verification, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that RCN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2951A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to ATS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on July 25, 2002. ATS states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. ATS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2990A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded June 7, 2002. Global has submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, Global's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the tape was authorized to change the service as required by our rules. We find that Global has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2991A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on January 3, 2002. ATC has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. According to the tape, the verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2992A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2993A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on May 10, 2002. RCN's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2994A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Dancris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Dancris of the complaint and Dancris responded on June 7, 2002. Dancris states in its response that a letter of agency was submitted which inadvertently included the Complainant's number. We find that Dancris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Dancris' actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2995A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 12, 2002. Global indicates that the Complainant's number was inadvertently added to an unrelated customer's account. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2996A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 9, 2002. Excel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2997A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed to IECOM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IECOM of the complaint and IECOM responded on June 20, 2002 IECOM states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2998A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BOI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOI of the complaint and BOI responded on May 10, 2002. BOI's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that BOI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2999A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9,.2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Southwestern Bell to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 18, 2002. CTS states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data processing error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS' actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3000A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on August 15, 2002. LSI indicates that Complainant's service was switched inadvertently when the number was included on another customer's letter of agency. We find that LSI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LSI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3001A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 2, 2002. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as an authorization to switch the service. The person on the tape authorizing the switch was the sixteen year old son of the Complainant. The Complainant's son, therefore, was not an adult as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3002A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint and One Star responded on August 16, 2002. One Star has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by One Star in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3003A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded May 16, 2002. RCN's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3004A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Vartec without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaints and Vartec responded. Vartec states that Complainants' numbers were switched due to a data processing error. We find that Vartec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Vartec's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3005A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST states that the changes to Complainant's telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. According to the tape, ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3006A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 10, and October 17, 2002, respectively. LCR's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3007A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Clear Choice to USD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USD of the complaint and USD responded on March 29, 2002. USD's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that USD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3008A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS' verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold and to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3011A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on April 30, 2002. Network states in its response that the letter of agency that was submitted by an outside sales agent on behalf of the Complainant ``was forged.'' We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3014A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Savings without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings of the complaints and Business Savings responded. Business Savings states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed after they received a signed letter of agency (LOA) from the complainants. Business Savings's, however, did not provide us a copy of the LOA in accordance with our rules. Business Savings has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3015A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, nor confirm the types of services involved
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3016A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on October 8, 2002. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ADST's verifications, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, nor confirm the types
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3018A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to CBI without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on July 1, 2002. CBI states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched due to a clerical error. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3019A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service providers had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on April 8, 2002. RCN states that they are unable to provide a Letter of Agency or a Third Party Verification tape as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3020A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Verizon to Broadwing without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on September 12, 2002. Broadwing states that Complainant's telephone number was erroneously included in a batch order. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3021A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to WCSS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on September 13, 2002. WCSS states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, and failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3022A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Webnet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Webnet of the complaint and Webnet responded on December 26, 2001. Webnet indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Webnet's verifier, however, did not confirm which services were to be switched, nor confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Webnet has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3023A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on September 18, 2002. Clearworld states that the changes to Complainants' telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. Clearworld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3026A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to Clearworld without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on September 9, 2002. Clearworld states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. Clearworld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3027A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service providers had been changed to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on September 24, 2001. Allegiance. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Allegiance in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3028A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on October 3, 2002. Lightyear indicates that it can not provide written or verbal verification, as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Lightyear's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3029A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 6, 2002. IDT states that they mistakenly switched Complainant back to their service during a change of underlying carriers. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3030A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3030A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3030A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to ATS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on April 18, 2002. ATC states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service provider was verified by a third party verification company. ATC's third party verified, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, and failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3036A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Quantrex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quantrex of the complaint and Quantrex responded on June 13, 2002. Quantrex stated that they have removed the Complainant from active billing and active master customer file. Quantrex, however, has failed to produce a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Further, Quantrex has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3037A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's March 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Coordinated Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing of the complaint and Coordinated Billing responded on August 22, 2002. Coordinated Billing states that after providing free service to the Complainant for over a year, it resumed billing services to those customers still active in its system. The Complainant, however, had switched to a different carrier prior to Coordinated Billing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3038A1.txt
  • in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance services had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (BellSouth) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Network Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Plus of the complaint and Network Plus responded on January 15, 2002. Network Plus stated that the Complainant authorized the switch in services. Network Plus states that a TPV tape is not available and that they do not have a contract with the Complainant's signature. We find that Network Plus has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3039A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2001 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 17, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3094A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on April 29, 2002. NALD indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed by Complainant and submitted. NALD's LOA, however, has no electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3095A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service providers had been changed from AT&T to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on April 16, 2002. Axces states that the changes to Complainants' telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Axces's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as require by our rules. We find that Axces has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3096A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 5, 2002. NALD states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization was processed on the internet. NALD's letter of authorization, however, fails to include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NALD has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3107A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on April 18, 2002. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OTC's verifier, however failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make a carrier change, the telephone numbers to be switched, and the types of services involved
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3108A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on August 8, 2002. CTS states that authorization was confirmed by a written letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainant. However, the name on the LOA bears no relation to the Complainant's as required by our rules. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3109A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3110A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the persons on the call wanted to make a carrier change, confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, and the types of services involved in the switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3111A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the persons on the call wanted to make a carrier change, confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, and the types of services involved in the switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3112A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 2, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call waned to make a carrier change, the telephone numbers to be switched, and the type of services involved
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3113A1.txt
  • carrier. Carrier should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 30, 2001. Sprint states that the Letter of Agency that authorized the carrier change contained the wrong phone number. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3114A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, when listening to the third party verification recordings provided by Sprint, are recordings of someone answering yes to questions that cannot be heard and then the tape ends abruptly. Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3115A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone numbers were erroneously added to accounts of existing Sprint customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3116A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 30, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). However, the signature was marked out and a note stating that the customer changed his mind was written on the LOA. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3117A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 10, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Sprint could not locate a recorded copy of the third party verification tape. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3118A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. However, Sprint could neither provide copies of the signed letters of agency nor copies of the third party verification recordings. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3119A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GlobalCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 23, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, received verification from a person well under the age of 18 years, who clearly did not understand the verification process. We find that Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3120A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 16, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was given through a third party verification process. However, Sprint states that its verifier failed to complete the authorization process with the complainant. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3121A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on August 27, 2002. Clearworld indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clearworld's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3122A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 4, 2002. Sprint states that complainant's service was switched in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3123A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on August 15, 2002. ADST's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a audio verification as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3124A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on September 16, 2002. WebNet indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WebNet states they have requested the appropriate proof of verification, however, the verification company has been unable to provide verification. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3125A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WebNet without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaints and WebNet responded. WebNet indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. WebNet's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. WebNet has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3126A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Communications Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaint and Communications Billing responded on October 22, 2002. Communications Billing states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error. We find that Communications Billing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Communications Billing actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3127A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, to confirm the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, and to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3128A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the switches occurred due to errors. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Sprint's liability below.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3134A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Conversent without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Conversent of the complaint and Conversent responded on June 4, 2002. Conversent states that Complainant's service was switched due to an administrative error. We find that Conversent has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Conversent's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3135A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Direct One without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Direct One of the complaint and Direct One responded on August 22, 2002. Direct One has failed to produce a valid third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Direct One has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3136A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on May 17, 2002. RCN states that they cannot produce a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3137A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 30, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, obtained authorization only for the Complainant's local service and not their long distance service. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3142A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Ameritech to NAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaint and NAI responded on August 14, 2002. NAI has submitted an electronic filing as a letter of agency for the Complainant. It does not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3143A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 23, 2002. Z-Tel's response states that the Complainant was not fully aware of the service that he was authorizing. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3144A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Network without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaints and Network responded. Network submitted a third party verification tape for each Complainant. According to the tapes, the verifier has failed to obtain separate authorizations from the subscriber for each service as required by our rules. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3145A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on August 20, 2002. Excel states in its response that a letter of agency of a previous subscriber of the phone number switched the Complainant's number. Excel is not able to provide a letter of agency for the Complainant. We find that Excel has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3146A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Webnet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Webnet of the complaint and Webnet responded on August 20, 2002. Webnet's response indicates that it has failed to provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that Webnet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3147A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. According to AT&T's responses, Complainants' telecommunications services were switched when people other than the Complainants cashed promotional checks. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to National without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National of the complaint and National responded on July 8, 2002. National indicates that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency (LOA) was processed and submitted on the Internet by Complainant. National's LOA, however, failed to include an Electronic Signature, as required by our rules. We find that National has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3185A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on December 13, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification and provided a recording of the verifiction. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3186A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when another customer provided Complainants' telephone number through third party verifications or on a signed letter of agency. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3187A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed due to keying errors. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3188A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed electronic letter of agency (LOA) was received through their website. In each case, however, Sprints LOA's were submitted by household members under the age of 18. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3200A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2002. Sprint states that the account was established fraudulently. Based on Sprint's admission, we find that Complainant did not authorize a carrier change and we discuss Sprint's liability below. Sprint states that it has removed all charges incurred for service provided to Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3201A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 10, 2002. Sprint states that the service request was verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want, in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3202A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorizations, however, forces the consumer to de-select any services they do not want to switch, in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3203A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Norcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norcom of the complaint and Norcom responded on October 2, 2002. Norcom states they have reviewed the complaint and are in agreement with the Complainant. We find that Norcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Norcom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3230A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Teleuno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Teleuno of the complaint and Teleuno responded on June 27, 2002. Teleuno submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, the verifier fails to state the telephone number being switched and to obtain separate authorizations for each telecommunication service. We find that Teleuno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3231A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2002. AT&T indicates in its response that the Complainant's interlata and intralata toll service were switched when the third party verifier, during a sale of service for another subscriber, inadvertently included the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3232A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 30, 2002. CTS has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as authorization to switch the service. The LOA is not dated as required by our rules. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3233A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on May 17, 2002. ADST has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. According to the tape, the verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules and failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3240A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Alltel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Alltel of the complaint and Alltel responded on November 4, 2002. Alltel states that complainant's service may have been switched due to a typographical error. We find that Alltel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Alltel's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3241A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Accounts of the complaints and National Accounts responded. National Accounts has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. National Accounts LOA however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that National Accounts has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3242A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Onestar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on October 30, 2002. OneStar indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneStar's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3243A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on October 22, 2002. Business Options states that they are unable to locate the third party verification tape. We find that Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Business Options's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3244A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 18, 2002. IDT states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. IDT's letter of authorization, however, is not dated as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3245A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on July 6, 2001. WebNet has not submitted a written or electronically signed letter of agency to obtain authorization neither have they submitted a third party verification. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3265A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on April 24, 2002. Yestel states that an error in submitting a trouble report caused the complainant to be switched to their service. We find that Yestel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Yestel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3266A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Ivantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ivantage of the complaint and Ivantage responded on April 25, 2002. Ivantage states that Complainant became a customer after signing a letter of agency (LOA). Ivanatage's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier maybe designated as subscriber interstate or interLATA interexchange carrier. Nor does it provide a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3267A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 5, 2002. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. LCR's verifier, however, failed to ask which number the complainant wanted to be changed. In addition, the verification tape implies the consumer thought they were talking to a representative from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3268A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CoreComm Long Distance (CoreComm) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 2, 2002. LCR states that Complainant's service was added as a result of a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3269A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 15, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. After review the submitted LOA, it is determined that the signature is not the signature of the complainant. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3270A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 1, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The answers to the questions regarding the person on the recording's desire to switch interLATA carriers and if that person has authorization to switch telecommunications carriers are inaudible. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3271A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications Company (BellSouth) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 23, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3272A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 28, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received when a promotional check was signed and cashed. The promotional check, however, contained the name and address of someone other than the complainant. In addition, the promotional check failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3273A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 19, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was added to an account of an existing Sprint business customer. When the error was discovered, Sprint deleted Complainant from that account and established a second account. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3274A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 12, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3275A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 19, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. The signature on the LOA, however, does not match the name of the subscriber. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3276A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants were inadvertently added to the accounts of existing Sprint customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3277A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to New Access without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on September 26, 2001. New Access states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. New Access' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3278A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (BellSouth) to IDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDS of the complaint and IDS responded on April 29, 2002. IDS stated that the Complainant authorized the switch in services. IDS states that the changes to Complaint's telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifier. IDS failed to provide a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3279A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PVT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PVT of the complaint and PVT responded on April 10, 2002. PVT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PVT's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as require by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3280A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service providers had been changed from their authorized carrier to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on October 25, 2002. Broadwing states that a data processing error occurred while inputting the telephone number into its system resulting in the incorrect customer's service being switched. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3281A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on September 26, 2002. ADST states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to verify the telephone number to be switched and obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3282A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from BellSouth to IDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDS of the complaint and IDS responded on August 16, 2002. IDS provided a third party verification recording which authorized IDS to become the Complainants' local service. IDS's verifier, however, failed to elicit all the numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that IDS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3283A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service providers had been changed from AT&T to ATS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 13, 2001. ATS states that they are unable to provide a letter of agency or a third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3295A1.doc
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 10, 2001. Sprint states complainant's telephone service was switched in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3296A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the service requests were verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3297A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint however, cannot locate the signed letters of authorization. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3298A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the service requests were verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3326A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 16, 2002. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS' verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3327A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex Communications (Opex) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 15, 2002. AT&T indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. According to the tape, Complainant did not authorize the switch for interlata service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3328A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications (Excel) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded August 12, 2002. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as authorization to switch the Complainant's telecommunications service provider. However, the LOA is not signed as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3329A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that the verifier inadvertently or erroneously switched Complainants' telecommunications services. Based on AT&T's admission, we find that Complainants' did not authorize a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3330A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 3, 2002. AT&T states that it inadvertently switched the line of the Complainant. Based on AT&T's admission, we find that Complainant did not authorize a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3331A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001 alleging that complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 30, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3332A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to National without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National of the complaint and National responded on May 23, 2002. National's letter of agency, however, does not contain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that National has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that National's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3333A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Network Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Plus of the complaint and Network Plus responded. Network Plus states that each Complainant authorized the conversion of their service. Network Plus, however, failed to provide a valid letter of agency or third party verification tape, for each Complainant, as required by our rules. We find that Network Plus has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3385A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 15, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant was switched when an on-line order was placed and a signed electronic letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, does not contain a signature as required by our rules. Also, Sprint's LOA requires that the customer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3386A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when electronic letters of authorization (LOA) wer signed and submitted. Sprint's LOA's, however, requires each subscriber to deselect any service they do not want, in violation of our rules. Also, Sprint's LOA's did not contain full signatures
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3396A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaint and UBC responded on October 4, 2002. UBC states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, UBC's LOA does not contain the date as required by our rules. We find that UBC has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3397A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 22, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, another customer provided complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3398A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaint and NAI responded on November 13, 2002. NAI indicates that authorization was received when Complainant visited their web site and completed a sign up page. NAI's letter of agency, however, does not provide a space for an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3399A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on October 7, 2002. Vartec indicates that authorization was received through third party verification. Vartec admits, however, that the Complainant did not complete the verification process. We find that Vartec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3421A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3422A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3423A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the accounts were established based on a Sprint PCS sales order. The service request was verified through third party verifications or through a signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3424A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3425A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 17, 2002. Sprint states that the account was established based on a sales order received from a Sprint authorized sales vendor. However, Sprint was unable to provide any proof of authorization. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3426A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 26, 2002. Sprint states that an order was received from Sprint PCS to switch Complainant's provider. However, Sprint was unable to locate a copy of the signed letter agency authorizing the switch. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3427A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 12, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant was switched when an on-line order was placed and a signed electronic letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, contains only a partial signature. In addition, Sprint's LOA, requires the customer deselect services they do not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3428A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant was switched when an on-line order was placed and a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, requires the customer to deselect services that they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3432A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 23, 2002. AT&T admits in its response that the Complainant's number was mistakenly switched due to a request from a previous subscriber of the phone number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3433A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. According to AT&T's responses, Complainants' telecommunications services were switched when people other than the Complainants cashed promotional checks. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3434A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 23, 2002. According to AT&T's response, Complainant's telecommunications service was switched when a person other than the Complainant cashed the promotional check. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3435A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T acknowledges that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched as a result of various errors. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3436A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 18, 2002. AT&T has submitted an electronic letter of agency for the Complainant. It does not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3437A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's response indicates that it is unable to provide letters of agency or third party verification recordings as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3438A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3439A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's response indicates that it is unable to provide letters of agency or third party verification recordings as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3440A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Verizon to Web Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Web Net of the complaint and Web Net responded on November 11, 2002. Web Net's response indicates that it is unable to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as required by our rules. We find that Web Net has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3441A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. Z-Tel provided the proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized Z-Tel to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3443A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002, alleging that complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on May 2, 2002. We find that CBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3444A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 30, 2002. IDT stated that the Complainant authorized the switch in services. IDT admits that it mistakenly changed Complaint's telecommunications service providers without authorization and verification. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3445A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2001, alleging that complainant's long distance service had been changed from PNG to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on January 25, 2002. We find that Opex has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3446A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cable & Wireless to CTN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTN of the complaint and CTN responded on August 15 2001. CTN states that Complaint's telephone number was mistakenly switched. We find that CTN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3454A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3457A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WebNet without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaints and WebNet responded. WebNet has failed to provide any proof of authorization as described in our rules. WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3458A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on May 9, 2002. McLeod states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. McLeod's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3459A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on August 10, 2001. McLeod states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. McLeod's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3460A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 24, 2002. Sprint states that an account was established based on an on-line order placed at Sprint's website in which a electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed. Sprint's electronic LOA, however, requires the subscriber to deselect any service that they do not want
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3461A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants were inadvertently added to the accounts of existing Sprint customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3462A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 12, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, failed to obtain the date on which it was signed as required by our rules. In addition, the signature on the LOA does
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3478A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 15, 2001. WorldCom states that they are unable to retrieve the Complainant's third party verification recording. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3479A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Broadwing Communications Services, Inc., (Broadwing) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant's mother authorized the change in service. WorldCom, however, has failed to produce a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3480A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on May 23, 2002. UKI states that Complainant authorized the change in both the intraLATA toll and long distance service. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that UKI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3481A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from IE Com to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 12, 2001. Qwest states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. In reviewing the third party verification tape, it is clear that the person on the tape could not understand the questions asked by the verifier because as stated in the complaint, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3482A1.pdf
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded. WCSS' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to each Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that each Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3514A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint and One Star responded on June 18, 2002. One Star states that the customer was switched due to a mistaken understanding that Complainant was still their customer. We find that One Star has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3515A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to CCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCC of the complaint and CCC responded on June 18, 2002. CCC states that Complainant's service was switched as a result of a data entry error. We find that CCC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CCC's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3516A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and Telecom USA to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on July 8, 2002. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3517A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. WCSS' verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched and obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3518A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to LLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LLD of the complaint and LLD responded on October 30, 2002. LLD states that Complainant was inadvertently switched back to their service when they were required to switch wholesale carriers in order to prevent termination of service to their customers. We find that LLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3519A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on May 7, 2002. USA states that Complainant was mistakenly switched when converting the customers of another provider to their network. We find that USA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that USA's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3520A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on October 29, 2002. USA states that Complainant was mistakenly switched when converting the customers of another provider to their network. We find that USA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that USA's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3521A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that records did not show and account for Complainants. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3522A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 24, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received based on an on-line order from their website, which included a letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA requires that the consumer deselect services that they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3523A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that they are unable to produce valid letters of agency or third party verification tapes as proof of authorization for these carrier changes. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3524A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint's letter of agency requires the customers to deselect services that they do not want in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3528A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to AIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AIN of the complaint and AIN responded on October 4, 2002. AIN states that it mistakenly switched complainant's telecommunication service providers due to a data entry error. We find that AIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AIN's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3529A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that the changes to the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. WCSS's third party verifiers, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3530A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on December 2, 2002. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3531A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on July 16, 2002. PNG states that the complainant's long distance service was incorrectly established with PNG when PNG purchased another company's telephone customer base. We find that PNG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3532A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 2, 2002. Sprint states that the service request was verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3533A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on November 4, 2002. Capsule failed to submit any valid verification information as required by our rules. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3534A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 24, 2002. Sprint states that the service request was verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3535A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3536A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3537A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. NAI's LOA, however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3539A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 13, 2002. LCR admits that the verification was not sufficient and should have been reverified. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3540A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on June 13, 2002. Advantage states that the Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3541A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Advantage Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage Telecom of the complaint and Advantage Telecom responded on August 9, 2002. Advantage Telecom states that Complainant authorized the change in services. Advantage Telecom's, third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that Advantage Telecom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3542A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on February 25, 2002. Yestel states that Complainant authorized the change in long distance service. Complainant states that after initially switching to Yestel, Complainant switched to another carrier. Complainant was then switched back to Yestel. Yestel, however, cannot provide evidence of a verification for a second
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3543A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on August 13, 2002. Advantage states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Advantage, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3576A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Accounts of the complaints and National Accounts responded. National Accounts has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. National Accounts LOA however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that National Accounts has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3577A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corp. to AT-N without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT-N of the complaint and AT-N responded on July 8, 2002. AT-N that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification, however, due to a corruption in their third party verification company's database, AT-N was unable to provide a copy of the recording. We find that AT-N has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3578A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on August 19, 2002. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Broadview was unable to locate a copy of the recorded third party verification. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3579A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on August 16, 2002. RCN states that Complainant was solicited by an outside company contracted by RCN, however, they are unable to provide any of the evidence required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-3580A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the service requests were verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-378A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 29, 2001. Sprint states that a data processing error occurred while inputting the telephone number into its system resulting in the incorrect customer's service being switched. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-384A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from AT&T Corporation to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on June 4, 2001. PowerNet states that the Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services were added in error. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PowerNet's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-385A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Globalcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 5, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's long distance service was switched by someone cashing the promotional check. AT&T admits that the name and address differ from the Complainant's and that the check was signed by the previous subscriber. We find that AT&T has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-386A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. 5. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-448A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 17, 2001 and January 15, 2002. Qwest states in its response that Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-449A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 8, 2001. Qwest states that a data processing error occurred while inputting the telephone number into its system resulting in the incorrect customer's service being switched. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-455A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Qwest. Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 19, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services were switched by someone cashing a promotional check. It also states that the name and address on the check differ from the Complainant's and that the check was signed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-456A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Power Net Global to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 1, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly switched by an inbound call to the AT&T's Business Customer Care Center. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-457A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 9, 2001. AT&T states that its third party verifier could not provide a recording. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-458A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 19, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services were inadvertently switched when the Complainant requested local service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-459A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Ciera without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ciera of the complaint and Ciera responded on September 9, 2001. Ciera's response states that the Complainant did not clearly understand that their service would be switched from Southwestern Bell to Ciera. We find that Ciera has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-460A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from AT&T Corporation to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on October 1, 2001. LCR failed to submit the proper proof of authorization as required by our rules, such as a verification tape or letter of agency. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-540A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on May 15, 2001. ALLTEL has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-541A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Global without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Global in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-542A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on May 17, 2001. PowerNet has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by PowerNet in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-543A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on June 8, 2001. Vox has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Vox in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-555A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telephone numbers were inputted into its system in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' intraLATA toll and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-556A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to Summit without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Summit of the complaints and Summit responded. Summit states that a data processing error occurred while inputting the Complainants' telephone numbers into its system resulting in the incorrect telephone numbers being switched. We find that Summit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-616A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Sonix4U to LDMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDMI of the complaint on August 2, 2001. LDMI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDMI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDMI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's intraLATA toll
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-617A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on October 5, 2001. ATS states in its response that the Complainant's long distance service was changed due to a typographical error made in keying in the telephone number. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-618A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' preferred telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses for the above-captioned complaints that WorldCom installs are verified through an independent third-party verification department (``TPV'') to assist in preventing unauthorized accounts from being established. WorldCom also states that each Complainant authorized the conversion of their preferred telecommunications service providers. WorldCom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-623A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. WorldCom upon review of WorldCom's responses to the above-captioned complaints, it appears that Complainants' telephone numbers were converted in error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-626A1.txt
  • to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service provider from Verizon and MCI WorldCom, Inc. to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 16, 2001. Z-Tel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-627A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 2, 2001. WorldCom states in its response that it did adhere to proper install procedures. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-628A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. WorldCom acknowledges that the voice on the TPV tape was not the Complainant's voice. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-630A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance provider had been changed from ALLTEL Corporation (ALLTEL) to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 13, 2001. ATS concedes that the Complainant did not give them authorization for a change in long distance service provider. ATS stated that the Complainant's long distance service provider was switched when another customer mistakenly gave the Complainant's line as one of their business
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-654A1.txt
  • to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance provider service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 1, 2001. TeleUno stated that they used a third party verifier who verified the change with the Complainant. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-655A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 11, 2001. WorldCom states that the complainant authorized the conversion of her local toll and long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-656A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Supra Telecom to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 5, 2001. WorldCom states that complainant ``provided his date-of-birth . . . which further validated the install.'' We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-657A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 1, 2001. WorldCom stated that they inadvertently included Complainant's long distance service on the order sent to Complainant's local exchange carrier. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-658A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. WorldCom that someone identified as the Complainant authorized the conversion of Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-795A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intra LATA roll and long distance service had been changed from ACC Business (Global Telecom) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 4, 2001. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-796A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-797A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on November 13, 2001. LCR states that the Complainant had authorized the conversion of intraLATA toll and long distance service. LCR's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that LCR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-798A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 12, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the conversion of Complainant's intraLATA and long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-799A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 6, 2001. WorldCom states that someone identified as the Complainant authorized the transfer of the Complainant's long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-807A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 20, 2001. IDT states in its response that Complainant's long distance was switched to IDT due to clerical error. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-808A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the Complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that installs are verified through an independent third-party verification department to assist in preventing unauthorized accounts from being established. WorldCom also states that each Complainant authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service providers. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-809A1.txt
  • Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-810A1.txt
  • carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L. P. (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 29, 2001. LCR states in its response that Complainant agreed through a third party verifier to have LCR become Complainant's long distance service provider. However, the third party verifier failed to obtain authorization to change the Complainant's intraLATA toll service to LCR. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-811A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Ameritech-Illnois (Ameritech) to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 3, 2001. Primus stated that while making changes to Complainant's telephone number and re-provisioning her service ``on-network'', Primus inadvertently requested that Complainant's intraLATA toll service be switched to Primus. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-812A1.txt
  • and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Verizon and Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to Cooperative without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cooperative of the complaint and Cooperative responded on May 17, 2001. Cooperative states during a bulk move of accounts, Cooperative inadvertently included Complainant's telephone numbers which had been previously cancelled. We find that Cooperative has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cooperative's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-813A1.txt
  • to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on June 19, 2001. UKI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-851A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on April 18, 2001. Z-Tel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Z-Tel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-852A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Sprint Corporation (Sprint) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 5, 2001. AT&T states that the Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services were switched due to an inbound call in which a Third Party Verification was completed. AT&T's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-853A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 16, 2001. AT&T states that it is unable to provide a recording from its third party verifier. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-854A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 17, 2001 and January 9, 2002. AT&T states that the Complainant's long distance service was switched by someone cashing the promotional check. AT&T admits that the name and address on the check differ from the Complainant's. We find that AT&T has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-966A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. In the case of IC 01-S58753, WorldCom states in its response that WorldCom was unable to obtain the third party verification tape. In the cases of IC 01-S46141, IC 01-S62560 and IC 01-S64341 WorldCom states that the Complainants' authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service providers.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-997A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on March 6, 2001 and June 5, 2001. Z-Tel states that a letter of agency was submitted by the Complainant. Z-Tel's letter of agency, however, does not contain the Complainant's billing name and address placed near the signature line on the back of the check as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-998A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on April 20, 2001. eLec states that while a representative was typing an order for another customer, the representative transposed a number causing Complainant's service to be changed. We find that eLec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-999A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 3, 2001. AT&T states that the telecommunications service was switched due to an outbound call in which a third party verification was completed. The Complainant's wife states that the voice on the tape is not her husband's and that the verification data is incorrect.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1000A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants or confirm each number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1001A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 20, 2002. LCR states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1002A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Ameritech to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded. GTI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that GTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1003A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on March 23, 2002. UKI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1004A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 20092, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 11, 2002. LCR states that Complainant authorized the change in service. LCR, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1005A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Clear Choice Communications, Inc., (Clear Choice) to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on September 16, 2002. WebNet states that its verification company is unable to provide a third party verification tape. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1006A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from IBN to Isterra without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Isterra of the complaint and Isterra responded on August 2, 2002. Isterra states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. Isterra, however, has failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Isterra has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1007A1.txt
  • in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance services had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) and Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 8, 2002. WCSS failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1008A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on April 24, 2002. ADST states that Complainant authorized the change in service. ADST, however, failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1021A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification, however, they are unable to locate a copy of the audiotape. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1036A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Elec to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on April 26, 2002. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Allegiance's letter of agency, however, fails to confirm all telephone numbers switched, as required by our rules. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1037A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1037A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1037A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 20, 2002. IDT indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, during the verification process the third party verifier did not elicit from the Complainant authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA service. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1038A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 10, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1039A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Express Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Express Tel of the complaint and Express Tel responded on September 26, 2002. Express Tel stated that Complainant used a dial around number to access their service and was never switched to their service. We find that Express Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1040A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Essential.com to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on August 20, 2002. We find that USA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1041A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 8, 2001. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1042A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 19, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Complainant states in the complaint that the person who authorized service was his wife's nephew who did not have authorization to change Complainant's telephone service. We find that Talk has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1054A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 21, 2002. UKI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the number to be switched and which service the Complainant wanted to be switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1055A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2002 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to Consolidated without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consolidated of the complaint and Consolidated responded on March 15, 2002. Consolidated states that the charges were due to a billing error and not a change in Complainant's service. We find that Consolidated has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1204A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR submitted third party verification tapes as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line during the verification as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1205A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 3, 2003. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched and confirm separated authorization for each service as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1206A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on December 20, 2002. VLD failed to provide a copy of letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that VLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VLD's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1207A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to Boradwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on March 19, 2003. Broadwing has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1208A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication provider services had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 10, 2003. Comcast states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1209A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to CloseCall without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on March 17, 2003. CloseCall indicated that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was processed and submitted by Complainant. CloseCall's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that CloseCall has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1210A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on October 25, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1211A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Emergent without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Emergent of the complaint and Emergent responded on April 6, 2003. Emergent states that Complainant's telephone number was switched as the result of a system error. We find that Emergent has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Emergent's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1212A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on April 7, 2003. Network has failed to provide the required proof of authorization as described in our rules. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Network's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1213A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on April 7, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1214A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 11, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1216A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change for each Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1217A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance had been changed from Verizon and WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 7, 2002. LCR states that Complainant authorized the change in services through a third party verifier. LCR, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1218A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 21, 2002. WCSS states that they have no record of the Complainant in their database. WCSS provided a third party verification tape as required by our rules. The third party verification tape provided by WCSS is blank. We find that WCSS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1219A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance services had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 24, 2002. RCN states that Complainant authorized the change in services. RCN provided a third party verification tape (TPV) that was damaged in transit to the Commission and could not be used. A request was made of RCN for another TPV and to date
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1220A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to GTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded. In each case, GTI states that each Complainant authorized the change in service. GTI's sales agent, however, did not drop-off the line once the three way connection was established as is required by our rules. We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1230A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint Communications Company has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1231A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainants' service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however did not drop-off the verification call once the three-way connection was established, as is required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1232A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 29, 2002. AT&T indicates that authorization was received and confirmed for interlata through a third party verification. The verifier, however, switched the Complainant's intralata service. We find that Complainant did not authorize a carrier change for intralata service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1233A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1234A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BSP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because the customer's account was acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk without an LOA or TPV. A carrier must, however,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1235A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Free without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Free of the complaint and Free responded on December 26, 2002. Free's response states that the Complainant's long distance service was inadvertently switched. We find that Free has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Free's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1236A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on July 17, 2002. We find that Broadwing has not engaged in an unauthorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1237A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on March 22, 2002. We find that Matrix has not engaged in an unauthorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1238A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on July 8, 2002. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop-off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as is required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1239A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on July 10, 2002. IDT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. IDT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1240A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on August 9, 2002. As noted above, our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier complies with our streamline procedures. To comply with these procedures, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1241A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Empire One Telecom (Empire One) to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on August 2, 2002. As noted above, our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier complies with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1254A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Further, WorldCom failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1255A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1256A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded. WCSS states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. However, the third party verification tapes were damaged. Requests were made for replacement tapes but none have been forthcoming. Therefore, neither third party verification tape contained clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1257A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on April 23, 2001. Advantage states that they used a three way call with the Complainant to verify the change in service. However, Advantage's sales agent did not drop-off the line once the three way connection was established, as is required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1258A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on August 13, 2002. RCN submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop-off the line once the three way connection was established, as is required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1259A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on January 7, 2002. CTS states that a data entry processing error occurred. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS' actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1264A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2001, alleging that in March 2001, complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 10, 2001. In its response, Sprint stated that it verified Complainant's order through a third party verifier, but was unable to provide a recording of this third party verification. Our rules requiring carriers to preserve third party verifications did not go into effect until
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1273A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to CCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCC of the complaint and CCC responded on July 30, 2002. CCC response states that a third party verification tape was acquired for verification for the switch. CCC, has failed to submit the tape as required by our rules. Their response, however, includes a script of the verification for the change in service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1274A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint and One Star responded on August 9, 2002. One Star admits in its response that the Complainant's number was mistakenly switched to its service. Based on One Star's admission, we find that Complainant did not authorize a carrier change. Therefore, we find that One Star's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1275A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 18, 2002. AT&T's response indicates that it is unable to provide a third party verification as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1276A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 10, 2001. LCR has failed to provide the required proof of authorization as described by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1277A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on February 28, 2002. McLeod's response states that the Complainant was switched by a letter of agency (LOA) authorizing the switch. McLeod has failed to submit the LOA as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1278A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 18, 2002. ATC's response states that third party verification was used to authorize the switch. However, ATC has failed to submit the verification tape as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1279A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to EzTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified EzTel of the complaint and EzTel responded on August 25, 2002. EzTel admits that they mistakenly changed Complainant's service. Therefore, we find that EzTel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss EzTel's liability below. EzTel must remove all charges incurred for service provided to Complainant for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1280A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1281A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on April 23, 2002. ATC has submitted a third party verification tape. The verifier on the tape has failed to ask whether the person on the tape was authorized to the service as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1282A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Nextel to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest and Nextel of the complaint and Qwest and Nextel responded on November 27, 2001 and April 29, 2002, respectively. A reseller of Qwest's service purchased the Complainant's account from Nextel as a part of a bulk transfer of customers. This purchase was approved by the Commission. We find that Qwest has produced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1293A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaints and Global TelData responded. Global TelData submitted third party verification tapes as evidence of authorized changes in complainants' service providers. Global TelData's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Global TelData
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1294A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on November 25, 2002. LDS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complaint's service provider. LDS's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1295A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Comm West to Discount without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount of the complaint and Discount responded on March 19, 2003. Discount submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complaint's service provider. Discount's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1296A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's automated verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1297A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaints and Business responded. Business's responses does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1298A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Empire without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Empire of the complaint and Empire responded on May 6, 2002. Empire's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) or a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Empire has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1299A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on November 1, 2002. ADST's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1300A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to AIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AIN of the complaint and AIN responded on February 14, 2003. AIN's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that AIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1301A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to National Accounts without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Accounts of the complaint on June 14, 2002. National Accounts' Letter of Agency did not contain an electronic signature as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that National Accounts' actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider and we discuss National Accounts' liability below. We also will
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1302A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to National Accounts without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Accounts of the complaint and National Accounts responded on March 26, 2002. National Accounts states that they have been Complainant's provider continuously since 1997. Information has been obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, however, shows that Complainant had switched services at least three times since 1997. Specifically, Complainant switched carriers in September
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1303A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 8, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1304A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 22, 2002. WorldCom states that their records do not reveal an account for the Complainant. Information obtained from Complainant's local telephone company indicates that WorldCom initiated a switch of Complainant's service on April 5, 2001. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1305A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed to Ameritech WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in services. According to the verification recording, the order was cancelled before the verification was completed. WorldCom also provided a second verification from a later date. World's verifier, however, failed to obtain a clear response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1306A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 26, 2001. WorldCom states that their records do not reveal an account for the Complainant. Information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, however, indicated WorldCom had initiated a switch to WorldCom's service. WorldCom stated that they stood by their written response and declined to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1307A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 15, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1308A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from BellSouth to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1309A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 11, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1310A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on July 24, 2002. McLeod states that Complainant authorized the change in service. McLeod's third party verification tape, however, is unintelligible. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeod's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1311A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc ., (WorldCom) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on June 12, 2002. McLeod states that they received an order from Complainant's local telephone company to switch Complainant's service. Information obtained from Complainant's local telephone company indicates that McLeod initiated the switch. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1312A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on Marcy 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on July 25, 2002. OTC states that Complainant authorized the change in service. OTC's third party verification tape was received damaged, and OTC did not respond to a request for another copy. OTC thus failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1313A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Broadwing Communications Services, Inc., (Broadwing) to Adelphia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Adelphia of the complaint and Adelphia responded on October 23, 2002. Adelphia states that they did not have a valid third party verification tape just a confirmation number. Adelphia ahs failed to provide a valid party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Adelphia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1314A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ACCXX without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACCXX of the complaint and ACCXX responded on August 5, 2002. ACCXX states that Complainant authorized the change in service. ACCXX, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ACCXX has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1315A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to ACC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACC of the complaint and ACC responded on February 4, 2002. ACC states that verbal authorization was given by the Complainant to switch service. ACC's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that ACC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1316A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Verizon to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on July 31, 2002. USA states that Complainant's account was obtained through a bidding process in a U.S. bankruptcy proceeding. However, this does not negate USA's obligation to comply with the Commission's streamlined rules which require the acquiring carrier to certify to the Commission that it
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1317A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded. GTI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. GTI failed to confirm the numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1318A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Savings Plan without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of each complaint and Business Savings Plan responded. In each case, Business Savings Plan states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. Business Savings states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because the customer's account was acquired during
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1319A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on October 17, 2002. Business Options states that Complainant authorized the change in service. However, the responses on Business Options' third party verification tape were inaudible and did not contain clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-131A1.txt
  • sections 1.720 - 1.736, and ``Informal Complaints,'' which are governed by sections 1.716-1.719. The Informal Complaint rules emphasize ease of filing by consumers, and voluntary cooperative efforts by consumers and affected companies to resolve their differences informally. The Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau's analysis of Part 1, Subpart E will be limited to ``Informal Complaints'' governed by sections 1.716 - 1.719. Purpose Part 1, Subpart E, Informal Complaints, sections 1.716 -1.719, sets forth procedures for the receipt and review of informal complaints against common carriers. Such complaints include complaints against a common carrier submitted outside the formal section 208 common carrier complaint process. These rules are designed to facilitate the efficient and expeditious processing of complaints submitted pursuant to section 208
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1320A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on May 18, 2002. UKI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI provided a third party verification tape (TPV) as required by our rules. However, UKI's TPV was damaged. A request was made for a new one, but to date none has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1321A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Eschelon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Eschelon of the complaint and Eschelon responded on July 5, 2001. Eschelon's response included a letter of agency (LOA) that indicates the Complainant authorized Eschelon to be the local service provider; however, the LOA does not indicate that Complainant wanted interLATA and intraLATA service. We find that Eschelon has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1322A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint on April 10, 2001, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS on June 11, 2001. APS states that the change to Complainant's telecommunication service provider was verified by a third party verification company. APS's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1323A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACC of the complaint and ACC responded on January 9, 2003. ACC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complaint's service provider. ACC's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1324A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaints and ATS responded. ATS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1325A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom Communications Company (WorldCom) to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint and Accxx responded on March 7, 2003. Accxx states that Complainant's was reactivated due to a data processing error. We find that Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1326A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on October 25, 2002. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Allegiance's letter of agency, however, fails to confirm each telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Allegiance has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1327A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on January 15, 2003. NALD submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. NALD's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during the verification, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1328A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on October 30, 2002. McLeodUSA's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) or a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1329A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Broadview without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaints and Broadview responded. Broadview's responses doe not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1330A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on March 13, 2003. 011 indicate that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that 011 have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1331A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on August 8, 2002. MetTel submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, failed to drop off the line during the verification as required by our rules. Also, MetTel's verifier, however, failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1332A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACCXX to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint and One Star responded on September 3, 2002. One Star states that the customer was switched due to a switching error on One Star's part. We find that One Star has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1333A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded on April 19, 2002. QuantumLink states that Complainant became a customer after signing a letter of agency (LOA). QuantumLink's LOA, however, does not contain subscriber's address as required by our rules. We find that QuantumLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1334A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LLD of the complaint and LLD responded on July 23, 2002. LLD submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. LLD's sales agent, however, did not drop off the line during the verification as required by our rules. We find that LLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1335A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on August 13, 2002. Americatel states that eived and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, Americatel was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1336A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. Advantage's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line during the verification as required by our rules. Also, the verifier did not obtain separate authorizations for each service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1337A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Epicus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Epicus of the complaint and Epicus responded on January 16, 2002. Epicus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1338A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) to CBRS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBRS of the complaint on July 5, 2001. CBRS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CBRS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CBRS' actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1339A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 9, 2001. RCN indicates that authorization was received when Complainant signed a letter of agency (LOA). However, the copy of the signed LOA that RCN provided was not readable. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1340A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 18, 2002. Qwest. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1341A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to OLS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OLS of the complaint and OLS responded on July 22, 2002. OLS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, OLS was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that OLS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1342A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on June 6, 2002. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cox's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1343A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 6, 2003. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification and through a letter of authorization. Talk's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold. In addition, Talk's letter of authorization failed to confirm each telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1344A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 22, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1345A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BSP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because each customer's account was acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk provided that the acquiring carrier sends notice of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1346A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BSP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because each customer's account was acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk provided that the acquiring carrier sends notice of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1347A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on August 6, 2002. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1348A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on August 6, 2002. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during the verification as require by our rules. Also, ADST's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1349A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on September 30, 2002. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1350A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 23, 2002. ADST submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established. In addition, ADST's verifier failed to obtain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1351A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 4, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Complainant states on the recording that she only wanted to switch to Sprint for long distance. Sprint's verifier, however, mistakenly informed the Complainant that intraLATA toll was long distance.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1352A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets Long Distance (WALD) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 17, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required the Complainant to deselect any service that they did not want in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1353A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 9, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, it is not clear from the recording that Complainant agreed to intraLATA toll service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1354A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI National (TTI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 18, 2002. Sprint states that their customer records do not include an account for Complainant. However, information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, states that on July 2, 2001 Complainant's service was switched to Sprint. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1355A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Econodial/CCI (Econodial) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 22, 2002. Sprint states that their customer records do not show that an account for Complainant was reactivated after being cancelled on September 1, 2001. However, information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, states that on December 1, 2001, Complainant's service was switched to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1356A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumers to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1357A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 24, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1358A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and submitted. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1359A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 24, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1360A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forces the consumer to de-select any services they do not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1361A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed or through a third party verification (TPV). However Sprint was unable to provide a copy of the signed LOA or a recorded copy of the TPV. Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1362A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forces the consumer to de-select any services they do not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1363A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or when a signed letter of agency was submitted and processed. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1364A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 16, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted and processed. However, Sprint was unable to provide a copy of the LOA. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1368A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on January 9, 2003. ClearWorld states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. ClearWorld's third party verifier, however, failed to verify the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1369A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on Match 8, 2002. Advantage submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Advantage's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1370A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on March 28, 2002. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1371A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PT 1 Communications, (PT 1) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on May 22, 2002. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1372A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication provider services had been changed from Sonyx to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on September 27, 2002. PowerNet states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1373A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded August 12, 2002. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established. We find that ATC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1374A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2001, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on June 13, 2001. Z-Tel provided a valid letter of agency. We find that Z-Tel Communications has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1375A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided a valid proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized AT&T to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1376A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 28, 2002. LDCB submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. LDCB's sales agent, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1377A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Global without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Global' agent, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. Global has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1378A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was etablished as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1380A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on September 3, 2002. LCR states that they used a three way call with the Complainant to verify the change in service. LCR's sales agent, however, appears also to be functioning as a verifier. Both the carrier and the verifier are acting in tandem to elicit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1381A1.txt
  • in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on May 23, 2002. Reduced Rate states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. Reduced Rate's submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service providers. Reduced Rate's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1382A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 23, 2002. WCSS states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. WCSS' third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1383A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on January 10, 2002. Axces states that Complainant authorized the change in his intraLATA toll and long distance service providers. Axces did not, however, confirm the telephone numbers to be switched. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1384A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from ACC Business (Global Telecom) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 5, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1385A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that complainant's local service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in the local service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1386A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on November 19, 2002. RCN submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. RCN's verifier, however, failed to confirm the phone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1387A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 22, 2002. WorldCom states that their records do not reveal an account for the Complainant. Information obtained from Complainant's local telephone company indicates that WorldCom initiated a switch of Complainant's service on April 5, 2001. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1388A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on April 3, 2003. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1389A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on October 4, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1390A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on November 7, 2002. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1391A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaints and Global TelData responded. Global TelData submitted third party verifications as evidence of an authorized change in complainants' service providers. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Global
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1392A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR submitted third party verifications as evidence of authorized changes in complainants' service provider. In each case the carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1393A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 22, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Complainant did not respond to the verifier's query as to whether the Complainant wanted to switch his service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1394A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on November 26, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to ask whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1395A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on March 7, 2003. ADST states that they received authorization through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1396A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on January 30, 2003. IDT indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. IDT, however, admits that it switched the wrong number. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1397A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 27, 2002. IDT indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. IDT's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1398A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on March 26, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1399A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 20, 2003. Primus states they switched underlying carriers and Complainant's account was reactivated in error. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1400A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Alliance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Alliance of the complaint and Alliance responded on March 24, 2003. Alliance did not submit a letter of agency or third party verification, as required by our rules. We find that Alliance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Alliance's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1401A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on March 31, 2003. IDT states that during a migration project Complainant service was mistakenly switched. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1402A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to DigiZip without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified DigiZip of the complaint and DigiZip responded on March 31, 2003. DigiZip states that Complainant's service was switched in error. We find that DigiZip has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that DigiZip's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1403A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on March 19, 2003. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Complainant did not give authorization to have their interLATA service switched. Cox states that Complainant's interLATA service was switched due to a manual error. We find that Cox has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1404A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalcom of the complaint and Globalcom responded on August 1, 2002. Globalcom states that FCC does not have jurisdiction over local telephone service therefore, Globalcom considers the matter closed. Globalcom did not produce a valid third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Globalcom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1405A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on December 19, 2002. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1406A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Advantage's sales representatives, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1407A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's sales representatives, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1408A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on November 6, 2002. ATS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as is required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1409A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1410A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Momentum without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Momentum of the complaint and Momentum responded on March 11, 2003. Momentum indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Momentum's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated intraLATA toll or interstate carrier as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1411A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on March 13, 2003. Cox indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Cox's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated intraLATA or interlata carrier nor does the LOA designate Cox to act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1412A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NAC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAC of the complaint and NAC responded on March 12, 2003. NAC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NAC's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for intraLATA toll and interLATA service as required by our rules. We find that NAC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1413A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 13, 2002. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verification, however, did not elicit the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1414A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on April 7, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1415A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on January 23, 2003. International did not provide a letter of agency or third party verification tape, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that International's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1416A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaints and Primus responded. Primus did not submit third party verification recordings or letters of agency. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1417A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ECG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ECG of the complaint and ECG responded on April 2, 2003. ECG failed to provide third party verification (TPV) or letter of agency (LOA). We find that ECG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ECG's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1418A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Affinity without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Affinity of the complaint and Affinity responded on December 23, 2002. Affinity indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. However the LOA for Complainant's local service does not contain any numbers to be covered by the preferred carrier change. We find that Affinity has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1419A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on January 8, 2003. BDP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BDP's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that BDP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1420A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on February 19, 2003. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1421A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ChoiceOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ChoiceOne of the complaint and ChoiceOne responded on January 10, 2003. ChoiceOne states when Complainant authorized local service Complainant did not choose intraLATA or interLATA carrier which caused Complainant's intraLATA and interLATA service to default to ChoiceOne. ChoiceOne however, failed to obtain authorization and verification as required by our rules for interLATA service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1422A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LD Consolidated without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LD Consolidated of the complaint and LD Consolidated responded on October 31, 2002. LD Consolidated indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LD Consolidated has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1423A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 3, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1424A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 3, 2002. RCN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1425A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 18, 2002. CTS states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1426A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on December 9, 2002. ATS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1427A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 12, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1428A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's sales representatives, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1429A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Global TelData without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaints and Global TelData responded. Global TelData indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Global TelData's sales representatives, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Global TelData has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1430A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 13, 2002. Primus submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, did not drop off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1431A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Touchtone Communications, Inc., (Touchtone) to WebPoint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebPoint of the complaint and WebPoint responded on May 29, 2002. WebPoint states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. WebPoint' third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the type of services involved as required by our rules. We find that WebPoint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1432A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Covista Communications to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on February 27, 2003. IDT admits that it mistakenly included complainants account in its migration project. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1433A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on November 15, 2003. VZLD's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that VZLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1434A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Communications without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications of the complaints and Communications responded. Communications's responses do not include third party verification recordings (TPV) or letters of agency as required by our rules. We find that Communications has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Communications's actions resulted in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1447A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established, as required by our rules. LCR has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1448A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 10, 2003. Excel's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1449A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaints and Global TelData responded. Global TelData submitted third party verifications as evidence of an authorized change in complainants' service providers. Global TelData's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Global
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1450A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on January 29, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1452A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1453A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on October 1, 2002. Axces states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Axces' third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1454A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service had been changed from Ameritech to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on June 14, 2002. Allegiance states that they have a valid Letter of Agency (LOA) as required by our rules. Allegiance's LOA, however, did not list the actual number to be switched. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1460A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on April 7, 2003. AllTel did not submit a letter of agency or third party verification to prove Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AllTel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1461A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on April 1, 2003. McLeodUSA admits that the Complainant did not authorize a change in service. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1462A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on April 3, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS, however, also states that they switched the wrong number due to a data entry error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1463A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 20, 2003. ACN indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. ACN, however, was not able to locate the LOA. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1464A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded on March 21, 2003. GTI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. GTI, however, did not submit the verification due to the fact that Complainant did not complete the verification process. We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1465A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on February 7, 2003. ACN did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1466A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on March 11, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1467A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on October 15, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's verifier, however, failed to confirm the types of services to be switched as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1468A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on April 4, 2003. CBI states that Complainants service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1469A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on March 3, 2003. McLeodUSA states Complainant authorized another carrier to provide their long distance service, but McLeodUSA keyed in the wrong code into their system. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1470A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on March 20, 2003. McLeodUSA did not submit a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1485A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on May 8 2001. Pursuant to Section 64.1120(3) of our rules, when obtaining an oral authorization the third party verification is required to include appropriate verification data, such as the date of birth or social security number of the subscriber. We find that APS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1486A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on May 7, 2001. MetTel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through Third Party Verification. MetTel's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that MetTel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1487A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on November 9, 2001. WebNet indicates verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. WebNet's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1488A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 5, 2001 Sprint indications that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1489A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global (Startec) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1506A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ACC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACC of the complaint and ACC responded on September 6, 2001. `We find that ACC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1507A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the conversion of the long distance service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1508A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 4, 2003. WorldCom states that its records do not show that the Complainant had an account with Intermedia. Information obtained from the Complainant's local telephone company indicated that there were interLATA and intraLATA toll service charges to Intermedia in June 2002. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1509A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from GTC to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 21, 2002. WCSS states that the consumer authorized the change in service. However, WCSS was unable to produce a third party verification tape or letter of agency c bvas required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1542A1.doc
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from GTC to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 21, 2002. WCSS states that the consumer authorized the change in service. However, WCSS was unable to produce a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1557A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded. WebNet has failed to provide the required proof of authorization as described in our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1558A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Worldcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Worldcom of the complaint and Worldcom responded on July 25, 2002. We find that Worldcom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1559A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Z-Tel Communications and PromiseVision to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 26, 2002. AT&T response states the Complainant was a customer since August 19, 1994 until June 22, 2002. Complainant's local exchange carrier indicated however, that another carrier was the designated interlata service provider from May 16, 2001 until June 18, 2002. On June 18,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1560A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 9, 2002. CTS provided the proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized CTS to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1587A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Teligent to Pae Tec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pae Tec of the complaint and Pae Tec responded on March 7, 2002. Pae Tec has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The LOA does not state that the subscriber understands that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1588A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 1, 2002. We find that Primus has not engaged in an unauthorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1589A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 25, 2002. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. The carrier's sales agent, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1590A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1591A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on December 23, 2002. AT&T Broadband submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the authorization to switch the Complainant's telecommunications service provider. However, the LOA submitted is not legible. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1592A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1593A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Econophone to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 20, 2001. AT&T response states that the interlata service was inadvertently included in the switch of local service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1594A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has provided letters of agency for the Complainants. However, there is no signature on the letters of agency as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1595A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1596A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1597A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Telecom USA (Telecom) to Promisevision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Promisevision of the complaint and Promisevision responded on December 8, 2002. Promisevision states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV) and a signed letter of agency (LOA). Promisevision's verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold and failed to confirm the telephone number to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1598A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 20, 2002. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1599A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 23, 2001. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1600A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Yestel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaints and Yestel responded. Yestel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Yestel's verifications, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm the services being sold as required by our rules. Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1601A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on January 22, 2002. CWC indicates authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. CWC's verifier, however, failed to ask if the person on the recording was authorized to make carrier changes and to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1602A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received or through a third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1603A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 21, 2001. IDT states that authorization was received when an electronic letter of agency was signed and submitted. We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1604A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommuunications service provider had been changed from CTI Long Distance to PNGC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNGC of the complaint and PNGC responded on May 15, 2001. PNGC states that Complainant became a customer when PNGC, with all of the appropriate regulatory approvals and customer notifications, purchased the customer database of a company where he was a customer. We find that PNGC has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1605A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 12, 2002. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1606A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. APS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. APS' agent, however, failed to drop off the line during the verifications as required by our rules. APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1607A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. APS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. APS' verifier, however, failed to obtain identifying data during verification call back. APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1608A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Talk responded on July 22, 2002. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1609A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Z-Line to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 21, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1610A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 21, 2002. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1611A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Advanced Telecom Group (ATG) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 14, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched based in error on an unsigned letter of agency received from Sprint PCS. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1612A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 2, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1613A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that they could not locate a copy of a signed letter of agency nor a recorded copy of a third party verification as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1614A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 10, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was signed and submitted. However, Complainant clearly indicated that he was not authorizing a switch in local toll service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1615A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 4, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's verifier, however, failed to ask whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1616A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Globcom Telecommunications (Globcom) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 4, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The answers to the verifier's questions however, are inaudible. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1617A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1618A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 25, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's account was established based on information received from Qwest, Complainant's local telephone company. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1619A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Essential.com to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 6, 2001. Sprint states that it does not have an account for the Complainant or his telephone number. However, information received from the Complainant's local exchange carrier states that a switch did occur. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1620A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 1, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, it is unclear from the tape whether Complainant authorized a switch of intraLATA service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1621A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced consumers to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1622A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 10, 2001. Sprint states that their customer records did not show an account for the Complainant's telephone number. However, information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier indicates Complainant's service was switched to Sprint in March of 2001. We find that Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1623A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, when Complainant was asked if they were authorizing Sprint to switch their local toll service, Complainant's response was ``long distance, yes''. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1624A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or when a signed letter of agency was submitted and processed. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1625A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1626A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 30, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1628A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR submitted third party verification tapes as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1629A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Worldcom to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 29, 2003. UKI states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that UKI has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1630A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to New Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on June 20, 2002. New Access states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. New Access's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1631A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on April 21, 2003. ATC states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. ATC's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1632A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded. CTS states that authorizations were confirmed by a written letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainant. CTS' LOA, however, fails to confirm that the subscribers understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1633A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 28 2002. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Primus's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephones to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1634A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Broadview without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaints and Broadview responded. Broadview's responses doe not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1635A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Ameritech to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 2, 2002. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line during once the three ways connection was established, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1636A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Fonetel to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on April 29, 2003. Clearworld states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Clearworld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1637A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication provider services had been changed from Ameritech to Midwestern without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Midwestern of the complaint and Midwestern responded on August 22, 2002. Midwestern states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1642A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 5, 2003. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to confirm separate authorization for each service as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1643A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on April 21, 2003. U.S. Telecom states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. U.S. Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1644A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom of the complaint and Telecom responded on March 27, 2003. Telecom states that Complainant's telephone number was switched as the result of a data entry error. We find that Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Telecom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1645A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on April 16, 2003. Business indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1646A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 30, 2002. IDT stated that the Complainant authorized the switch in services. IDT admits that it mistakenly changed Complaint's telecommunications service provider. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1647A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1648A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication provider services had been changed from Atlantic Telephone to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on August 9, 2002. PowerNet states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1653A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on November 14, 2023. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through by third party verification. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1654A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 22, 2003. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through by third party verification. LCR's verification, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LCR has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1655A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 6, 2001. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1656A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to SBA without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaints and SBA responded. SBA indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBA's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that SBA has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1657A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1658A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on December 19, 2002. Optical states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Optical, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1659A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2002, alleging that complainant's long service had been changed from AT&T to Direct One without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules. We notified Direct One of the complaint and Direct One responded on April 2, 2002. We find that Direct One has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1660A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1661A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has provided the appropriate documentation to show that Complainants authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1662A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc., (Excel) to WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 2, 2001. WorldCom states that it received a letter of agency from Complainant. WorldCom's letter of agency did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1663A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services service provider were changed from TTI National and Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1664A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed Complainant's authorized carrier to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 4, 2002. WorldCom states that Ameritel, a wireless provider, was responsible for the change in Complainant's service. Information obtained from Ameritel states that they never sold or resold long distance service. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1666A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by each Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1667A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2002 alleging that complainant's local and long distance service providers had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on May21, 2002. McLeod stated that Complainant authorized the change in services. We find that McLeod has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1668A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services had been changed) to Business Savings Plan without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaints. Business Savings Plan has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Business Savings Plan to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Business Savings Plan's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1669A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Norstar without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norstar of the complaints. Norstar has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Norstar to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Norstar's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1670A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Isterra without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Isterra of the complaint and Isterra responded on April 11, 2002. We find that Isterra has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1671A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on June 1, 2002. Reduced Rate states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. Reduced Rate submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. However, Reduced Rate emphasizes in its own response, Reduced Rate's verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1672A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded. GTI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. GTI's sales agent, however, did not drop-off the line once the three way connection was established as is required by our rules. We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1673A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint has provided the appropriate documentation to show that Complainants authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1674A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on December 11, 2001. CTS states that Complainant authorized the change in service. CTS' states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1675A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to Lifeline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lifeline of the complaint and Lifeline responded on October 24, 2001. We find that Lifeline has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1676A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 23, 2002. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1678A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ACC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACC of the complaint and ACC responded on September 6, 2001. `We find that ACC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1680A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has provided the appropriate documentation to show that Complainants authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1681A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from McLeodUSA to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 6, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was switched with the receipt of a letter of agency. WorldCom, however, failed to produce a valid letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1682A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on June 11, 2002. UKI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI's third party party verifier, however, failed to confirm the numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1685A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 23, 2002. We find that ADST has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1686A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 6, 2002. IDT states that it mistakenly included Complainant's telephone number in a migration project transferring active customers from one underlying carrier to another underlying carrier. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1687A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 10, 2002. Qwest did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1688A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's (type of service) service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on April 1, 2002. We find that Yestel has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1689A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on March 10, 2003. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBA's verifier, however, failed to elicit from Complainant if they wanted to switch. We find that SBA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1690A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on March 20, 2003. RSL states that their customer base has been sold to another carrier and this transition inadvertently caused Complainant's service to be switched. We find that RSL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1691A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on February 13, 2003. BullsEye indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BullsEye's verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of subscriber. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1692A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on February 3, 2002. eLEC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that eLEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that eLEC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1693A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Liberty without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Liberty of the complaint and Liberty responded on December 26, 2002. Liberty states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifier. Liberty's verifier, however, combined the questions of whether person on the call was authorized to make the change and whether that person was over the age of 18. It is unclear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1694A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Vox Populi without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox Populi of the complaint and Vox Populi responded on September 13, 2001. Vox Populi indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Vox Populi's LOA, however, failed to inform customer they can only have one preferred intraLATA carrier as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1695A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on September 30, 2002. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Allegiance, however, switched telephone number(s) not listed on the LOA as required by our rules. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1696A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on January 17, 2003. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to inform consumer the types of services involved and Primus's sales agent did not drop-off the verification call once the three way connection was established, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1697A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to USRepublic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USRepublic of the complaint and USRepublic responded on February 21, 2002. USRepublic. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1698A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 17, 2001. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's sales agent, however, failed to drop-off the call once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1699A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on April 11, 2003. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's automated verifier, however, failed to obtain the telephone number to be switched and the carrier's sales agent failed to drop-off the line once the three way connection was established
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1700A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 27, 2003. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1701A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on October 8, 2002. Business Options states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business Options, however, has decided not to forward the verification tape due to the fact they feel Complainant was not fully aware they were switching their service. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1702A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on April 21, 2003. Excel indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Excel's LOA, however, is not in a readable format as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1714A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on May 9, 2002. Global. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1715A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorizations for each telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1716A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced consumers to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1717A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 23, 2001. Sprint states that an account was established for the complainant based on a service order forwarded by Southwestern Bell. However, based on information given to us by Southwestern Bell, Complainant's service was switched via a carrier tape received from Sprint. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1718A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 23, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. When Sprint's verifier asked if the person on the call was authorizing Sprint to provide her local toll service, she stated ``local long distance, not local toll.'' We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1737A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on July 17, 2002. Broadwing states that it billed the Complainant for casual calls over of Broadwing's network and therefore cannot provide a letter of authorization or third party verification recording. The Complainant's local carrier, however, provided us with evidence that Broadwing requested that the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1738A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2001 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications (Capsule) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 8, 2001. We find that WorldCom did not change Complainant's service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1739A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Asian-American Association (Asian-American) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 30, 2001. WorldCom states that the calls in question were dialed using a WorldCom access code and that WorldCom did not switch Complainant's service. Information obtained from the local telephone company indicates that WorldCom was the Complainant's carrier at the time the calls were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1742A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 25, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1743A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 10, 2003. Comcast states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1744A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainants' telephone numbers were purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1745A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1765A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACC of the complaint and ACC responded on August 13, 2001. ACC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that ACC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1766A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to ACN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. ACN states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1767A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1768A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1769A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 17, 2002. Sprint states that the account for the Complainant was established on December 12, 2001. However, after reviewing the signed letter of agency provided by Sprint was not signed until December 14, 2001. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1786A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Budget without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Budget of the complaint and Budget responded on August 7, 2002. Budget states that Complainant's calls were routed over their network by Complainant's local service provider, therefore causing the casual billing. We find that Budget has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1787A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Budget without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Budget of the complaint and Budget responded on August 7, 2002. Budget states that Complainant's calls were routed over their network by Complainant's local service provider, therefore causing the casual billing. We find that Budget has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1788A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1789A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1792A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WALD of the complaint and WALD responded on April 29, 2003. WALD has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1793A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SWBT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBT of the complaint and SWBT responded on November 7, 2002. We find that SWBT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1794A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on December 19, 2002. SWBLD indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SWBLD, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that SWBLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1795A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CIT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CIT of the complaint and CIT responded on May 7, 2001. CIT has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1796A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDS of the complaint and IDS responded on June 20, 2001. IDS have fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1797A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 27, 2001. Qwest have fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1798A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on February 12, 2002. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the call once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1799A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on March 20, 2002. We find that Capsule has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1800A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on April 11, 2003. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1801A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Global TelData without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaint and Global TelData responded on February 14, 2003. Global TelData states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Global TelData has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1802A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication provider services had been changed from Ameritech to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on April 24, 2002. BSP states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1804A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 12, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1805A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1807A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 28, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1808A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Birch Telecom, Inc., (Birch) to EqualNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified EqualNet of the complaint and EqualNet responded on October 10, 2002. EqualNet states that its parent company CCC Globalcom Corporation (CCC) acquired the Complainant's account from another company. EqualNet states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1809A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1810A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on June 14, 2002. Cavalier produced a letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules. Cavalier's LOA, however, failed to inform the Complainant that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change in the subscriber's preferred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1815A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 29, 2002. VarTec complied with our rules at the time of the change of service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1816A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Dancris Telecom (Dancris) to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on May 1, 2003. Acceris states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Acceris's LOA, however, did not contain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1817A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on September 27, 2002. We find that PowerNet has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1818A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 6, 2003. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1819A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SWB) to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on February 5, 2003. SBA indicated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBA's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm whether the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that SBA has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1820A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SWB) to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 10, 2003. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1821A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on May 12, 2003. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1822A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on October 30, 2002. ClearWorld states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. ClearWorld's third party verifier, however failed to verify the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1823A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaints and ClearWorld responded. ClearWorld indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ClearWorld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1824A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on January 10, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1825A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from Clear Choice Communications (Clear Choice) to Tele Uno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Uno of the complaint and Tele Uno responded on September 24, 2001. Tele Uno states that Complainant telecommunication service providers were verified by a third part verification company. Tele Uno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Tele
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1826A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, and did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1827A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1828A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on April 22, 2003. Optical states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Optical's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Optical has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1829A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance (Adelphia) to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on April 18, 2003. Optical states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Optical's third party verifier, however, failed to ask whether the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1830A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BSP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because the customer's account was acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk without an LOA or TPV. A carrier must, however,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1831A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 1, 2001. TeleUno states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1832A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from America OnLine (AOL) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 11, 2002. Talk's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1833A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on May 5, 2003. WCSS states that they received authorization through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1834A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Ameritech (SBC) to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on May 19, 2003. We find that Clear Choice has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1837A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Matrix Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix Telecom of the complaint and Matrix Telecom responded on June 13, 2001. We find that Matrix Telecom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1838A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on Apri9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance services had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 26, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1839A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1840A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Business Savings Plan without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaint and Business Savings Plan responded on March 15, 2002. Business Savings Plan states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Business Savings Plan, however, did not obtain a waiver of our authorization requirements, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1841A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has provided the appropriate documentation to show that Complainants authorized the conversion of their telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants and we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1846A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on March 26, 2003. Global states that Complainants service was switched due to a keying error. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1847A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eMeritus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eMeritus of the complaint and eMeritus responded on November 26, 2001. eMeritus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1848A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on August 15, 2002. McLeodUSA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. McLeodUSA's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1849A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on April 9, 2003. eLEC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that eLEC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1850A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 22, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to elicit the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1851A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on August 7, 2002. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1852A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 17, 2002. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1853A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on July 29, 2002. Advantage states that it entered Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1854A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on June 6, 2002. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clearworld's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1855A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1857A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (BellSouth) to Network Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Plus of the complaint and Network Plus responded on August 15, 2002. Network Plus. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1858A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from TSG-Zone Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 29, 2001. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1859A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Globcom to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 17, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1864A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 19, 2002. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1866A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on April 1, 2003. McLeodUSA indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. McLeodUSA's LOA, however, failed to notify Complainant of the decision to change from current carrier to new carrier and did not inform subscriber to designate McLeodUSA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1867A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's (type of service) had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on July 10, 2002. WebNet did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1888A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 12, 2002. We find that AT&T Corporation did comply with our rules at the time of the change in provider. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1931A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that in October 2002, complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Liberty without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Liberty of the complaint and Liberty responded on December 26, 2002. Liberty provided a third party verification and we found in the Prior Order that Liberty's actions resulted in an unauthorized change of Complainant's telecommunications service provider. Upon reconsideration, however, we find that Liberty is a company that ``provides Internet solutions for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1955A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to each Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1956A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that Complainants authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1963A1.txt
  • the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints on alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainant's service, AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1964A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 29, 2002. AT&T submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the authorization to switch the Complainant's telecommunications service provider. However, the LOA, however, does not list each number to be covered by the preferred carrier change order. We find that AT&T has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1965A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 23, 2002. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1966A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 6, 2002. AT&T has submitted an electronic letter of agency (LOA). The LOA does not include a electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1967A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 31, 2002. AT&T indicates that authorization was received and confirmed for intralata through a third party verification. AT&T, however, also switched Complainant's interlata service and did not provide proof of authorization to switch that service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1968A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainants' service provider. The carrier's sales representative, however, did not drop-off the line during the verification as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1969A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's response, as well as information obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1970A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1971A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional actions, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1972A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on May 23, 2002. Allegiance has submitted a letter of agency for the Complainant. The letter of agency, however, does not list each number to be covered by the preferred carrier change order. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1980A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 5, 2001. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1981A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, Sprint could not locate copies of the signed LOA's. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1982A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications Company (BellSouth) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 22, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm each telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. Also, Sprint's sales representative failed to drop off verification call once the three-way
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1983A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumers to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1984A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1985A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 4, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, during the verification process the Complainant states that she did not want her service switched until more information regarding Sprint's rates was received. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1986A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1987A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1988A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based their response, as well as information we obtained from each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1989A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 28, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1995A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2001A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2002A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2003A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to TeleUno without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno indicates authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. TeleUno, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2004A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the identity of subscriber and did not confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2005A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2006A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BSP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaints and BSP responded. BSP states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2007A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2008A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Primus without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaints and Primus responded. Primus states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Primus in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2009A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on February 13, 2003. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clearworld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2010A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 12, 2003. CTS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can may be designated as the interstate or interLATA preferred interexchange carrier for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2011A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on October 19, 2002. CTS states that it made a data entry error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2012A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on November 29, 2002. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clearworld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2013A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on May 28, 2003. BellSouth has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2014A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 5, 2002. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2015A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on August 13, 2002. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2016A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on May 28, 2003. OneStar failed to submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneStar's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2017A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 23, 2002. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2018A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on April 22, 2003. We find that Network has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2019A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 26, 2002. ACN states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2020A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 27, 2002. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2021A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on May 3, 2002. We find that Ameritech has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2022A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on May 22, 2003. Sage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sage, however, entered Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2023A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on April 1, 2003. McLeodUSA failed to provide a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2024A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 11, 2002. SBC failed to provide a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2025A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on April 8, 2002. Americatel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2026A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 10, 2003. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2027A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on November 13, 2002. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2028A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2028A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2028A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on October 31, 2002. 011 indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2029A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2029A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2029A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on February 5, 2003. 011 indicates that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2041A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2042A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 30, 2003. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by SBC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2043A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provides had been changed from CGI to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 13, 2003. Advantage states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Advantage's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2044A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on December 27, 2002. Verizon has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Verizon in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2045A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS states that they received authorization through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, did not confirm the services to be switched as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2046A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on May 27, 2003. Z-Tel admits that it mistakenly switched complainant's service. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2047A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provides had been changed from CGI to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 28, 2003. Advantage states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. Advantage's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2048A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service providers had been changed from AT&T to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 4, 2002. Verizon has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2049A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service providers had been changed from the authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 12, 2002. Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2050A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 19, 2003. LDCB states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. While consumers billing's verifier did confirm that the Complainant's receptionist was over 18 and authorized to change service, the verifier did not elicit a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2051A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 2, 2002. CTS states the Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated for each service as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2052A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sage Telecom carrier to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on May 21, 2003. Z-Tel indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. Z-Tel's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2053A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2056A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Essential.com to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 14, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2120A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local and intraALATA toll service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on (date). WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2122A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. WorldCom states that the Complainant did not complete the verification process and that WorldCom sent an installation order in error to Complainant's local exchange carrier. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2123A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2124A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information obtained by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2125A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on May 31, 2002. We find that Matrix has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2130A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 23, 2003. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2131A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Talk America to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on June 12, 2003. AllTel states that Complainant authorized the change in service. AllTel, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2132A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on June 12, 2003. Cavalier states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Cavalier, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2133A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on May 19, 2003. AT&T Broadband states that due to its clerical error complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T Broadband's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2134A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech, AT&T to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on January 30, 2003. RCN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that RCN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2135A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on April 22, 2003. We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2136A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on June 13, 2003. IDT states that it mistakenly switched complainant's services. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2137A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 2, 2003. Excel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2138A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 5, 2003. ATS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2139A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 19, 2003. Qwest admits that complaints information was entered incorrectly into Qwest's database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2141A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NOL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOL of the complaint and NOL responded on January 22, 2003. NOL is a company that ``provides Internet solutions for the small business enterprise'' and that the disputed charge was for the provision of a customized website, e-mail addresses and other internet service provider services. We find, therefore, that NOL's actions did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2142A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Liberty without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Liberty of the complaint and Liberty responded on April 8, 2003. Liberty is a company that ``provides Internet solutions for the small business enterprise'' and that the disputed charge was for the provision of a customized website, e-mail addresses and other internet service provider services. We find, therefore, that Liberty's actions did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2143A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 11, 2002. Cox has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2144A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on April 22, 2003. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2145A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on April 18, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OTC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2146A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on December 16, 2002. CBI did not submit a third party authorization or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2147A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 3, 2003. CTS states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data processing error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2148A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 30, 2003. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2149A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 13, 2003. Talk states that they inadvertently placed an order to switch Complainant's interlata service to another provider. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2150A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on December 30, 2002. Based on information obtain by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2151A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on October 15, 2002. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RRLD's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2152A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on October 29, 2002. USA states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2153A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaint and NAI responded on November 12, 2002. NAI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic filing letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. NAI's LOA, however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2154A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on April 23, 2003. Cavalier has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2157A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on November 22, 2002. Excel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2158A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 31, 2002. Excel states that authorization was received and verified through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2159A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on September 27, 2002. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2160A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on March 9, 2002. PNG states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2161A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on May 17, 2002. Based on information obtain by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Broadwing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2162A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on August 27, 2002. eLEC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2163A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2164A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2165A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2166A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cytela without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cytela of the complaint and Cytela responded on May 5, 2003. Cytela states that Complainant's service was switched due its error. We find that Cytela has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cytela's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2167A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 15, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's verifier, however, failed to drop off the call once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2168A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on April 15, 2003. Capsule did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2169A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on April 9, 2003. SWBLD states they are unable to find the required verification for Complainant. We find that SWBLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SWBLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2170A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on April 14, 2003. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2171A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Ciera without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ciera of the complaint and Ciera responded on May 6, 2003. Ciera states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2173A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2174A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Corporation to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 21, 2002. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. AT&T's LOA did not confirm the following as required by our rules: that the subscriber designates AT&T to act as the subscriber's agent for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2175A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 30, 2003. AT&T response indicates that during the third party verification process the verifier inadvertently indicated a switch for the Complainant's intraLATA service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2176A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 24, 2003. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the authorization for the switch. However, the LOA was not signed as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2177A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses indicate that it is unable to provide a letter of agency or third party verifications as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2178A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 23, 2002. ADST has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. The verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations from the subscriber for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2181A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Worldcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Worldcom of the complaint and Worldcom responded on May 1, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Worldcom did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Worldcom, Inc.'s actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2235A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom International, Inc. (WorldCom) to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on September 14, 2001. Cox provided a valid Letter of agency (LOA) for one of Complainant's number. The third party verification for the other number switched by Cox, however, did not confirm the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Cox
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2236A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2237A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications Services, Inc. (ACN) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 24, 2001. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2238A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2239A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2240A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2241A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2242A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2265A1.txt
  • in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) and Qwest Communications (Qwest) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 12, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2266A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2267A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by it in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2268A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom. WorldCom states that Complainants authorized the change in services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2269A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2270A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant account was established via an internet letter of authorization. WorldCom failed to provide a copy of the electronic letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2271A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-227A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Essential without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Essential of the complaint and Essential responded on May 18, 2001. Essential indicates that authorization was received when Complainant signed and cashed an incentive check with a letter of agency attached. Essential's letter of agency, however, did not confirm subscribers' understanding that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-228A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on April 25, 2002. Network indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Network was unable to provide us with a recorded copy of the third party verification. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-229A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Yestel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaints and Yestel responded. Yestel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Yestel's verifiers, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, nor confirm that each person on the calls were authorized to change carriers as required by our rules. We find that Yestel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2309A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to AT&T Broadband/Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband/Comcast of the complaint and AT&T Broadband/Comcast responded on June 12, 2003. AT&T Broadband/Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T Broadband/Comcast in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-230A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on April 30, 2002. Excel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. The voice on the recording that claims to be the Complainant, however, is female, while the Complainant is male. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2310A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on June 24, 2003. AllTel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2311A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from the authorized carrier to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS states that they received authorization through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2312A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 2, 2003. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2313A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2314A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on June 24, 2003. SBC Long Distance has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2315A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on May 30, 2003. ATC states complainant's telephone number was incorrectly entered as that of another subscriber. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ATC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2316A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on May 19, 2003. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2317A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 13, 2002. IDT states that Complainant authorized the change in service. IDT, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2318A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on September 12, 2002. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2319A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on June 25, 2003. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-231A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 7, 2001. Talk states that Complainant's service was changed when another customer accidentally provided his telephone number through an online sign up process. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2320A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on June 23, 2003. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2321A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 Of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on June 18, 2003. U.S. Telecom submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. U.S. Telecom's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2334A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on their response, and /or further information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. We therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2335A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's response, and /or information obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2336A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 18, 2002. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape as authorization for the switch. The Complainant states on the tape that she did not want her service switched until she received information in the mail. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2337A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Williams without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Williams of the complaint and Williams responded on September 13, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Williams has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-235A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on October 30, 2002. 011 stated that the Complainant authorized the switch in services and that these switches were verified by a third party verifier. 011, however, failed to provide a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to IDT without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on January 6, 2003. IDT states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was mistakenly included in its migration project. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDTs' actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-237A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to MT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MT of the complaint and MT responded on January 7, 2003. MT states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. MT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service, as required by our rules. We find that MT has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2384A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Citizens of the complaint and Citizens responded on August 13, 2002. Citizens has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2385A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to Sprint Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Corporation of the complaint and Sprint Corporation responded on March 26, 2002. Sprint Corporation. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2386A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed from AT&T Corporation to CenturyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on August 8, 2002. CenturyTel. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2387A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints on alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Verizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2388A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on March 26, 2002. Ameritech has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2389A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 3, 2001. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-238A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on December 29, 2002. Lightyear states that they are unable to provide a Letter of Agency or a Third Party Verification tape as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2390A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 23, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2391A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2392A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 7, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2393A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 11, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2394A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2395A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2396A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 15, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was frauduently obtained by someone using one of the Complainant's telephone numbers. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2397A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll service had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. When the Complainant ask the verifier to explain ``local toll-serve,'' WorldCom's third party verifier defined it as local long distance to which Complainant responded, ``Oh, long distance, yeah.'' We find that WorldCom has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2398A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2399A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-239A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on November 14, 2002. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, and failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2401A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA and long distance service provider had been changed to Sprint Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Corporation of the complaint and Sprint Corporation responded on December 4, 2002. While Sprint Corporation admits in its response that the unauthorized change was caused by Sprint, our rules did not apply to local exchange carriers at the time of the unauthorized switch. We find that Sprint Corporation has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-240A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to AN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AN of the complaint and AN responded on October 22, 2002. AN indicated that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency was processed and submitted by Complainant. AN's LOA, however, failed to confirm the subscriber's address and telephone number as required by our rules. We find that AN has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2412A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization in March 2001. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 10, 2001. Z-Tel stated that it verified Complainant's Order through a third party verifier. Although we initially found in the Prior Order that Z-Tel had not obtained separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant, upon further review of Z-Tel's verification recording, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2414A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 4, 2002. IDT states that it mistakenly included complainant's account in its migration project. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2415A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Sprint to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 16, 2003. Verizon states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Verizon, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2416A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to WorldxChange without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldxChange of the complaint and WorldxChange responded on May 30, 2003. WorldxChange has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2417A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 18, 2003. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ATC's third party verifier, however, failed to ask whether the person on the recording was authorized to switch service as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2418A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on June 29, 2002. Based on the information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, McLeodUSA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2419A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to KTNT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified KTNT of the complaint and KTNT responded on January 22, 2003. We find that KTNT's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2420A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on June 23, 2003. UKI submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2421A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Ameritech and Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 11, 2002. Qwest states that Complainant's telephone number was entered incorrectly into Qwest's database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2422A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 11, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier may be designated for each service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2423A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on June 23, 2003. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2437A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Qwest states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2438A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2439A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2440A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2441A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on October 29, 2002. We find that Ameritech has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2442A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 12, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2443A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 14, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2444A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on May 7, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2445A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 5, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll carrer, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2446A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cox Virginia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox Virginia of the complaint and Cox Virginia responded on May 19, 2003. Cox Virginia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cox Virginia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Cox Virginia has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2447A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 22, 2003. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2448A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 5, 2003. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, fails to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated interstate or intraLATA toll carrier, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2449A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 19, 2003. CTS states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2450A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on April 21, 2003. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2451A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 18, 2003. Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2452A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 18, 2003. ACN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2453A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on June 9, 2003. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. America Net's verifier, however, failed to confirm the types of services to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that America Net has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2454A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on May 23, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OTC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2455A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on April 23, 2003. Capsule states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Capsule's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2456A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on May 20, 2003. OneStar has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2457A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on January 9, 2003. WebNet did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2458A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 10, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2459A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 1, 2001. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2460A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on September 6, 2002. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that Allegiance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2461A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 25, 2003. Qwest indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2462A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on July 8, 2003. We find that APS has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2463A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on December 18, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that UKI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2464A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on December 18, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2465A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 6, 2003. LCR states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2466A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to TDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaint and TDS responded on March 28, 2003. TDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that TDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2467A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LD Consolidated without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LD Consolidated of the complaint and LD Consolidated responded on June 16, 2003. LD Consolidated states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LD Consolidated sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LD Consolidated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-246A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint and NOS responded on November 8, 2002. NOS states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, NOS's LOA does not contain complainant's address and the telephone number to be covered by the preferred carrier change, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2472A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on Novmeber 5, 2001. Covista has failed to produce any evidence that the Complainant authorized a change of long distance service provider such as a letter of authorization or a recording from a third party verifier. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2473A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Teq Corporation (WTC) to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint on November 2, 2001. BSP has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BSP to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BSP's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2474A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 6, 2001. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2475A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PT-1 Communications (PT-1) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 9, 2001. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2476A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, each Complainant has been fully absolved of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2477A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2478A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 20, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-247A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 30, 2002. RCN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2486A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on June 12, 2002. Ameritech states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Ameritech has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2487A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2488A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service providers had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on May 10, 2002. We find that McLeod has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2489A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-248A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on September 23, 2002. Optical indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Optical states that their verification company has failed to provide them with a copy of the verification tape. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2490A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that Complainants authorized the change in services. It is unclear from WorldCom's verification recordings, however, whether Complainant authorized a change in their intraLATA services. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2491A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2492A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 10, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2493A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance services had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 11, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2494A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance services had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 11, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2495A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on October 1, 2001. We find that Yestel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2497A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance of the complaint and Long Distance responded on October 21, 2002. Long Distance states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Long Distance's representative, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2498A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2499A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LD Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LD Services of the complaint and LD Services responded on April 14, 2003. LD Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LD Services's representative, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-249A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 16, 2002. IDT states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's account because the account showed as active while in the process of transferring active customers from one underlying carrier to another underlying carrier. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2500A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on January 24, 2002. We find that NALD has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2501A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 5, 2003. We find that Primus has complied with our rules as they existed at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2502A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on July 6, 2001. We find that WebNet has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2503A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 7, 2003. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2504A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 29, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. LDCB's verifier also failed to obtain appropriate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2505A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 6, 2003. LCR admits that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2506A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 5, 2003. We find that Primus has complied with our rules as they existed at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2507A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Discount Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount Plus of the complaint and Discount Plus responded on May 12, 2003. Discount Plus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Discount Plus's representative, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2508A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to U.S. Telecom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaints and U.S. Telecom responded. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. U.S. Telecom verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. U.S. Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2509A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on June 16, 2003. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-250A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded on December 16, 2002. QuantumLink states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was signed. QuantumLink's LOA, however, does not contain the Complainant's billing address and each number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that QuantumLink
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2510A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on June 16, 2003. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2511A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on June 23, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2512A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on April 28, 2003. LDA states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2514A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 2, 2003. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2515A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2516A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 8, 2003. RCN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that RCN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-251A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 9, 2002. Sprint states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, Sprint's customer mistakenly provided the Complainant's number. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2526A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Covista Communications (Covista) to United Systems Access Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United Systems Access Telecom of the complaint and United Systems Access Telecom responded on January 7, 2003. United Systems Access Telecom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that United Systems Access Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2527A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 17, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. LCR's sales representatives failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2528A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on July 16, 2003. SBA states that Complainant's service was unintentionally changed due to an inadvertent processing error. We find that SBA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBA's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2529A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS Metrocom to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on July 14, 2003. SBA submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. SBA's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that complainant wanted to change from current carrier to new carrier as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-252A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 9, 2002. Sprint states that the service request was verified through an electronically signed letter of agency (LOA). However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want, in violation of our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2530A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sage Telecom carrier to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 14, 2003. Z-Tel indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. Z-Tel's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2531A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Legent without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Legent of the complaint and Legent responded on July 14, 2003. Legent states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. Legent's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that Legent has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2532A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2533A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on December 11, 2002. We find that Verizon has not violated our carrier change rules as they existed at the time of carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2534A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 17, 2003. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ATC sales representative, however, failed to drop off the verification call once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2535A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2536A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2539A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GTC to LDDS Worldcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDDS Worldcom of the complaint and LDDS Worldcom responded on April 17, 2002. Based on the information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that LDDS Worldcom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-253A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 15, 2002. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Primus's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2540A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on May 1, 2002. IDT has submitted an electronic letter of agency (LOA). The LOA does not include a complete date as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2541A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on January 16, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that RSL has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2542A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 23, 2002. Z-Tel. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2543A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on October 17, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Americatel has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2544A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's responses, as well as information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that the Complaints have been resolved. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2545A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 26, 2002. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as authorization for the switch in the Complainant's service. The LOA was not signed by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2546A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2547A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2548A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2549A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on the information provided by AT&T and Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-254A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on December 12, 2002. CBI did not provide any evidence for the change of complainant's telecommunications carrier. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2555A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has submitted letter of agencies (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch in each Complainants service. The LOA's however, were not signed by the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-255A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 18, 2001. Qwest indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Qwest's automated verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-256A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on November 20, 2002. Covista states that complaintant's service was switched when another customer signed up for their service and keyed in the wrong number. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-257A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on December 18, 2002. McLeodUSA states that Complainant's telephone service was activated in error. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-258A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on December 17, 2002. AllTel states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, AllTel cannot locate the LOA. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-259A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2002 alleging that complainant's long service had been changed from Sprint to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules. We notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on August 27, 2002. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-260A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATI of the complaint and ATI responded on October 16, 2002. ATI states that it mistakenly switched complainant's telecommunication service providers due to a data entry error. We find that ATI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ATI's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-261A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, nor confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-262A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. NAI's LOA's, however, did not include electronic signatures as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-263A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-264A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2740A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received a complaint on February 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from the authorized carrier to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 10, 2003. Comcast stated that a letter of agency was not obtained from the subscriber; however, a letter notification was submitted to the Commission under our streamlined procedures. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-274A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on February 25, 2002. Yestel admits that that due to a provisioning error the Complainant was switched without authorization. Based on Yestel's admission, we find that Complainant did not authorize a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Yestel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-275A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Yestel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaints and Yestel responded. Yestel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Yestel's verifier, however, failed to elicit the following information required by our rules: confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; the telephone numbers to be switched; and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2768A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 2, 2003. WorldCom states that their records revealed that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom, however, states that due to a system error it is unable to provide a copy of the third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2769A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA and long distance service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 10, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-276A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaints and Yestel responded. Yestel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Yestel's verifier, however, has failed to elicit the following information required by our rules: confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; the telephone numbers to be switched;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2770A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded on. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2771A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2772A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2773A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 9, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2774A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 12, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2775A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications, Inc., (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. WorldCom states that service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2776A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 14, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently entered when a request to convert service was received by WorldCom. WorldCom admits to a data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2777A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 14, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently entered when a request to convert service was received by WorldCom. WorldCom admits to a data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-277A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 29, 2002. AT&T states in its response that the change in Complainant's telecommunications service was due to a clerical error. Based on AT&T's admission, we find that the Complainant did not authorize a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2782A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on July 16, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2783A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on August 5, 2003. Optical states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Optical, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2784A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 5, 2003. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2786A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from WorldCom to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on June 25, 2003. UKI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2787A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Legent without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Legent of the complaints and Legent responded. Legent indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Legent's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. Legent has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2788A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on July 18, 2003. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ATC's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on July 16, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-278A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 16, 2002. AT&T indicates that the Complainant's number was inadvertently added to an unrelated customer's account. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2790A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from WorldCom to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on December 13, 2002. PowerNet states that Complainant authorized the change in service. PowerNet, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2794A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28,2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 31, 2001. AT&T. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2795A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 11, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2796A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2797A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2798A1.txt
  • that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance service providers had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-279A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that IDT customers was mistakenly subscribed to its service when IDT switched its underlying carrier to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2802A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2803A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2804A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2805A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on Sprint's response, as well as information we obtained from each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2806A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2807A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Although we conclude that Sprint did not obtain the subscriber's actual authorization to change the subscribers' preferred telecommunications carrier, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted Section 258 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require only that a carrier follow
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2808A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2809A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldxChange Communications (WorldxChange) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 21, 2003. Sprint states that they were unable to locate any information on how Complainant's account was established. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-280A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that IDT customers were mistakenly subscribed to its service when IDT switched its underlying carrier to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2810A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 15, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was established in error because Complainant hung up prior to completion of the verification process. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2811A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 27, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2812A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Clear Communications to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 1, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2813A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2816A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on July 24, 2003. UKI submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2817A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2818A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CierraCom Systems to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on November 8, 2002. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ATC's verifier, however, failed to ask whether the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that ATC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2819A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on July 9, 2003. ATC states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ATC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2820A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that Complainants authorized the change in services. WCSS, however, failed to provide a third party verification tapes or letter of agencies as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2821A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 28, 2003. LCR states complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched as the result of a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2822A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 28, 2003. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2846A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2847A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2848A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CenturyTel Long Distance, Inc. (CLD) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 25, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization was signed via their website and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2849A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 4, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2850A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2851A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on Sprint's response, as well as information we obtained from each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-288A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on August 2, 2002. USA states that Complainant's account was obtained through a bidding process in a U.S. bankruptcy proceeding. However, this award does not negate USA's obligation of complying with the Commission's streamlined rules. If USA was not able to abide by certain aspects of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2894A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-289A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from RSLCOM USA (RSL) to RSL to without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on August 9, 2002. PowerNet provided a properly excited letter of agency signed by the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-290A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2002 alleging that complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on August 12, 2002. Talk America has produced a valid letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Talk America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-291A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service to Network Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Plus of the complaint and Network Plus responded on August 19, 2002. Network Plus states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. Network Plus failed to confirm the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Network Plus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-292A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T to Advantage Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage Telecom of the complaint and Advantage Telecom responded on August 1, 2002. Advantage Telecom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Advantage Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that Advantage Telecom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-293A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded. GTI states that its telemarketer misrepresented the service as that of another carrier.We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's local service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-294A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 200, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and McLeod USA (McLeod) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on August 26, 2002. RCN states that Complainant authorized the change in services, however, RCN failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-295A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Verizon to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint. eLEC states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. eLEC, however, failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that eLEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-296A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and WorldxChange Communications (WorldxChange) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on November 30, 2001. RCN states that they had a valid letter of agency signed by the Complainant which gave permission for the change in services. It has been determined that the signature on the letter of agency and the signature of the Complainant on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2973A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to LifeLine without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LifeLine of the complaint and LifeLine responded on September 2, 2003. LifeLine submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LifeLine's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that LifeLine has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2974A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on September 4, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2975A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on September 4, 2003. CBI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. CBI, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-297A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on September 13, 2001. RCN states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. RCN failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2983A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 10, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was switched upon receipt of a letter of agency (LOA). WorldCom's LOA, however, was illegible. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2984A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 12, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2985A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 22, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2987A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainants' service, AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2988A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2989A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-298A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 20, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2992A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 10, 2003. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2993A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2995A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2996A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2997A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 4, 2003. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2998A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 10, 2001. Upon review of Talk's response, we find that Talk has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2999A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 9, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, after numerous requests for the Commission, LCR has failed to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-299A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on May 23, 2002. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Excel was unable to provide a recorded copy of the verification. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3000A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 9, 2002. Qwest states that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received. However, Qwest was unable to provide a copy of the signed LOA. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3001A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-300A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ServiSense without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ServiSense of the complaint and ServiSense responded on July 10, 2002. ServiSense indicates that authorization was received when Complainant visited their web site and completed a sign up page. However ServiSense was unable to produce a hard copy of the signed letter of agency. We find that ServiSense has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-301A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Network Enhanced Technologies, Inc. (NET) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 15, 2001. Qwest indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-302A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on May 17, 2002. Broadwing states that they received call detail records for Complainants telephone number and simply billed for the utilization of their network. However, after receiving PIC change information from Verizon, it was determined that an electronic order was sent from Broadwing to Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-303A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 8, 2001. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-304A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Talk without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk indicates that authorization was received when a Direct Mailer Promotional Check was signed and cashed. Talk's letter of authorization, however, did not confirm subscribers' understanding that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service and that subscriber may consult with Talk
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-305A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 25, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-306A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 24, 2001. Talk states that Complainant's service was changed when another Talk customer provided Complainant's telephone number through third party verifications. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-307A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 24, 2001. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The person on the tape claiming to be Complainant, however, is male, but Complainant is female. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-308A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from XO Communications (XO) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 25, 2001. Sprint states that that Complainant's telephone numbers were added to the account of an existing Sprint customer. However, Sprint does not have a signed letter of authorization or a third party verification for the addition of Complainant's services, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-309A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants were switched based on information received from other customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-310A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's were switched due to a keying error when entering another customer's telephone number. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3115A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for the intraLATA service for one of the telephone numbers switched as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3116A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3117A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications carriers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that they acquired Complainants' accounts in a bulk transfer from another carrier. WorldCom, however, failed to follow our subscriber authorization rules or to file a petition for waiver of the rules before transferring the customers.] We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3118A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3119A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom. WorldCom states that Complainants authorized the changes in their services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-311A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 1, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's service was mistakenly switched based on information given by another Sprint customer. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3120A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 23, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3122A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 23, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3123A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2001, alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 28, 2002. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3124A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed to WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 21, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the change in the Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3125A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed to WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 21, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the change in the Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-312A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 15, 2003. Sprint indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and submitted. However, Sprint could not locate a copy of the signed LOA. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3130A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on August 26, 2003. Lightyear states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's telephone number, but did not know how the mistake occurred. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Lightyear's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3131A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on September 4, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3132A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Bullseye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaint and Bullseye responded on August 15, 2003. We find that Bullseye has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3133A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on May 29, 2003. Opex indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Opex's LOA, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3134A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on August 6, 2003. ATC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ATC's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3135A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Talk America to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on November 21, 2002. SBC Long Distance submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. SBC Long Distance's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3136A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 1, 2003. Silv has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3137A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 28, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. LCR's verifier, however, did not ask whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier changes, as required by our rules. We find that LCR
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3138A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on August 6, 2003. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ATC's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line one the three way call was established as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3139A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Broadwing Communications to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on August 18, 2003. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-313A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 17, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required the subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3140A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 13, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was inadvertently added to their service. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3141A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3142A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3143A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3148A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2002. Based on information obtained from WorldCom and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3149A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 16, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-314A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Also, Sprint's LOAs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3152A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3153A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Communications to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on October 30, 2001. We find that Broadview has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Broadview's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3154A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-315A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3165A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on June 18, 2003. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3166A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 5, 2002. IDT states that Complainant's service was switched due to IDT's error. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3167A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth (BellSouth) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on July 1, 2003. Business Options did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3168A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Atlas without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Atlas of the complaint and Atlas responded on September 24, 2003. Atlas indicates authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. Atlas's electronic LOA, however, does not contain the electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Atlas has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3169A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Premier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Premier of the complaint and Premier responded on July 31, 2003. Premier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Premier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Premier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-316A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website by someone other than the complainants, and inadvertently provided the complainants telephone numbers. Also, Sprint's LOA required each subscriber to deselect any service that they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3170A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Z-Tel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3171A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on July 24, 2003. PNG did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that PNG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3172A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on March 3, 2003. Business Options did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3173A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on July 24, 2003. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3174A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from EOT (EOT) to ComTech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ComTech of the complaint and ComTech responded on February 6, 2003. ComTech did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ComTech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ComTech's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3175A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GCI to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on March 6, 2003. VLD states that customer service was not switched but was billed for a collect call. We find that VLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3186A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone (Southwestern Bell) to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on August 11, 2003. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3187A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on August 11, 2003. ADST submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spoonful.Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spoonful.Net of the complaint and Spoonful.Net responded on December 30, 2002. We find that Spoonful.Net did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3189A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 15, 2003. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3190A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Ameritech to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 28, 2003. Global submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Global sales representative failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that Global
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3191A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 28, 2002. WCSS states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WCSS, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3192A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3193A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3194A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on August 1, 2003. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3195A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 16, 2003. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3196A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded. CTS states that authorizations were confirmed by a written letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainant. CTS' LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscribers understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service as required in our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3201A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications (SBC) to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on August 5, 2003. Business Options did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3202A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecom (Global) to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on September 10, 2003. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3203A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on September 16, 2003. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3204A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 4, 2003. IDT states that Complainant's service was mistakenly switched back to IDT. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3205A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications (BellSouth) to Buyersonline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buyersonline of the complaint and Buyersonline responded on June 18, 2003. Buyersonline did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Buyersonline has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Buyersonline's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3206A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on July 8, 2003. Allegiance states that Complainant's service was switched in error. We find that Allegiance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Allegiance's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3207A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on May 6, 2003. International states that Complainant's service was switched due to an underlying carrier network error. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that International's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3208A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on July 16, 2003. AllTel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AllTel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3209A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on August 19, 2003. PNG indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed, as required by our rules. We find that PNG has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3210A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on June 26, 2003. eLEC states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error. We find that eLEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that eLEC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3211A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on September 12, 2003. Comcast states that it inadvertently switched Complainant's service due to an internal systems error. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Comcast's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3212A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 31, 2003. Based on this information, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3213A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 6, 2003. Global states that Complainant's service was switched due to a migration error. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3232A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distances been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to verify the change in Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3233A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Broadwing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 5, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3234A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 17, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3237A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 30, 2002. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3238A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 28, 2003. Based on the information provided by the Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3239A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3240A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3241A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3242A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on July 24, 2003. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3243A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 3, 2002. Broadview did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadview's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3244A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when UBC purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3245A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on June 18, 2003. International states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. International's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3246A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3247A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3248A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to TFN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TFN of the complaint and TFN responded on August 11, 2003. TFN states that Complainant's service was switched due to human error. We find that TFN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TFN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3249A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3250A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SWB) to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on June 30, 2003. Vartec did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Vartec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Vartec's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3251A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on August 14, 2003. OneStar did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneStar's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3252A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech (Ameritech) to AMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AMI of the complaint and AMI responded on August 22, 2003. AMI states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error. We find that AMI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AMI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3253A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on August 28, 2003. SBC states that Complainant's service was not switched but Complainant changed rate plans which caused an increase in its bill. We find, therefore, that SBC's actions did not result in an unauthorized change of Complainant's telecommunications service provider, and we deny Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3254A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon (Verizon) to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on April 3, 2003. Broadwing states that Complainant's service was inadvertently switched. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3255A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 18, 2003. ACN indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3256A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Mercury without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mercury of the complaint and Mercury responded on July 17, 2003. Mercury is a company that ``provides Internet solutions for organizations and consumers'' and that the disputed charge was for the provision of internet provider services. We find, therefore, that Mercury's actions did not result in an unauthorized change of Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3257A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 23, 2002. Qwest states that Complainant's telecommunications carrier was not changed and Complainant requested a service from the local exchange carrier. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3258A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBC of the complaint and CBC responded on March 26, 2003. We find that CBC has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3259A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex Communications (Opex) to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 23, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3260A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3264A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on September 22, 2003. SBC Long Distance states that Complainant authorized the change in service. SBC Long Distance, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that SBC Long Distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3265A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 27, 2003. LCR states that Complainant's complaint was the result of a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3266A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on September 22, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3267A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on September 18, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3268A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Vartec to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 10, 2002. Talk states that authorization was confirmed when a signed letter of authorization was received and processed. Talk's letter of authorization, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3269A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3270A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on September 25, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3271A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Inter-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inter-Tel of the complaint and Inter-Tel responded on September 26, 2003. Inter-Tel states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error by an Inter-Tel employee. We find that Inter-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Inter-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3272A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Worldlink Services to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on September 11, 2003. We find that VZLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3273A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on September 2, 2003. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3283A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunication service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaints and Primus responded. We find that Primus has complied with our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3284A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on February 15, 2002. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3285A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 30, 2003. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ATC's sales representative, however, did not drop off line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3286A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on March 26, 2002. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's third party verifier, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established. We find that LCR has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3287A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Lightyear to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 20, 2001. We find that Primus has complied with our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3288A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 12, 2003. We find that SBC has complied with our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3289A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on May 23, 2003. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BullsEye's verifier, however, failed to receive a separate authorization for intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3290A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on February 26, 2003. Axces states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Axces's verifier, however, did not receive authorization for interLATA service as required by our rules. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3291A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3292A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on May 2, 2003. We find that WebNet has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3293A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WebNet without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaints and WebNet responded. WebNet did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WebNet actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3294A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on May 13, 2003. Z-Tel states authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3295A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications Services (ACN) to CoreComm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreComm of the complaint and CoreComm responded on April 24, 2002. CoreComm states that their long distance provider misrouted Complainant's telecommunications services after complainant had switched to ACN for intralata toll and long distance services. We find that CoreComm has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3296A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on June 17, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3297A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3298A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T was in compliance with our carrier change rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3299A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainants' service, AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3300A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3301A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. According to AT&T's responses, the Complainants' telecommunications service provider was switched when AT&T purchased a list of customers from their local exchange carriers. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3302A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3303A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 23, 2002. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the authorized switch. The LOA does not contain the number that was actually switched. Further, AT&T states in its response that a local processing error caused the wrong number to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3304A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2003. AT&T has failed to provide the required proof of authorization as described by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3305A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 18, 2003. AT&T has submitted as proof of the authorized switch a letter of agency (LOA). AT&T admits due to an apparent provisioning error, the local service of the Complainant was mistakenly switched. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3306A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth and Qwest to Talk.com and PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on May 31, 2001. BellSouth has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3322A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 30, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3323A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 13, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3324A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3325A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 13, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorizations for each service for the first telephone number listed in Appendix A. Further, WorldCom's third party verifier failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3326A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3327A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3328A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 16, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verification tape however, was not legible. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3329A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules.e We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3330A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3347A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from First Line Communications to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 10, 2003. We conclude that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3348A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to CoreCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreCom of the complaint and CoreCom responded on October 22, 2002. CoreCom states that it inadvertently switched complaint's service during a billing system conversion. We find that CoreCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CoreCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3349A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on October 22, 2002. LDS indicates authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. LDS's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDS has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3350A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BetterWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BetterWorld of the complaint and BetterWorld responded on September 3, 2003. BetterWorld submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. BetterWorld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that BetterWorld has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3351A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on August 6, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier may be designated for each service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3352A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on September 26, 2002. Optical did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Optical's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3353A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 17, 20012. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3354A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Local of the complaints and Sprint Local responded. Sprint Local states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3355A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3356A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 30, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error by a Sprint employee. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3357A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 30, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. When asked if the person on the call was authorizing Sprint to provide intraLATA toll service the Complainant was clearly confused and stated ``yes to long distance''. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3358A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3361A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on August 28, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3363A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 15, 2003. ACN indicates that authorization was received in the form of a letter of authorization. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3364A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Globalinx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalinx of the complaint and Globalinx responded on July 19, 2003. Globalinx states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when Globalinx purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3365A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3366A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3367A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications (Cox) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 14, 2003. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3368A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on June 27, 2003. eLEC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that eLEC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3369A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 15, 2003. ACN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. ACN submitted a copy of a valid LOA. Thus, we find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3370A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, LP (Sprint) to BWT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BWT of the complaint and BWT responded on June 27, 2003. BWT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BWT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that BWT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3371A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, LP (Sprint) to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on July 28, 2003. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CBS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that CBS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3372A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on June 20, 2003. Comcast states that the Complainant's interLATA and intraLATA toll service was inadvertently changed to Comcast. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Comcast's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3373A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaints and ATS responded. ATS indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ATS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3374A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. OneLinks's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3375A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ANL without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANL of the complaints and ANL responded. ANL states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that ANL has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3376A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3377A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on July 3, 2003. USA states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base, and therefore they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3378A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global (PNG) to Williams without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Williams of the complaint and Williams responded on June 11, 2002. Based on information provided by PNG, we find that Williams did not change Complainant's telecommunications service provider. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3379A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to BCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BCLD of the complaint and BCLD responded on May 28, 2002. Based on information obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that BCLD has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3380A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 10, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3381A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 23, 2003. CTS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform the subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's interstate or intraLATA toll carrier for any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3382A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 13, 2002. Qwest states that Complainant's service was not switched and Complainant received charges for services requested from the local exchange carrier. We find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3383A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on November 29, 2002. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change and to elicit the identity of the person on the call, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3384A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 4, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3385A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Bellsouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on August 18, 2003. BellSouth states that Complainant's service was not switched and Complainant received charges from authorized carrier Sprint. We find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3386A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ATX Telecommunications (ATX) to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 4, 2003. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Broadview's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3387A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on July 15, 2003. We find that Covista has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3396A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Close Call America to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 6, 2002. AT&T states that the Complainant's number was inadvertently switched due to a number transposition. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3397A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3398A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 2, 2001. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded. We find that Verizon was in compliance with our rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, Verizon's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3399A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3400A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3402A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to QiTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QiTel of the complaint and QiTel responded on April 7, 2003. QiTel states that authorization was received through third party verification. We find that QiTel has not violated our slamming liability rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3403A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to VVS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VVS of the complaint and VVS responded on July 10, 2003. VVS states that Complainant's telecommunications carrier was not switched and authorization was received for voicemail service. We find that VVS has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3404A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on May 23, 2003. Comcast states that it mistakenly changed Complainant's service due to a clerical error. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Comcast's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3405A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 7, 2003. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our stream lined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3409A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 27, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was confirmed when a signed letter of authorization was received and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, did not contain a date. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3414A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom to without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 18, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3415A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 30, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3416A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that World Com has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3417A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded on. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3418A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3419A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2001. We find that WorldCom complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3420A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 6, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3421A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3422A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 21, 2003. WorldCom states the change in Complainant's service was due to a WorldCom error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3423A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 28, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3424A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 17, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3432A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3434A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 8, 2003. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as authorization for the switch. The LOA did not include the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3435A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 21, 2003. AT&T states that it switched Complainant's service provider in error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3436A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Broadband to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 4, 2003. AT&T states in its response that the Complainant was switched due to an error in their system. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3437A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on February 26, 2003. AT&T Broadband has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3438A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 13, 2003. AT&T has provided a third party verification tape as authorization for the switch. However, the verifier failed to confirm that the Complainant was authorized to make the switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3439A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDA without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaints and LDA responded. LDA indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3440A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. Qwest states that it incorrectly entered Complainant's number into its database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3444A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to DOC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified DOC of the complaint and DOC responded on May 22, 2003. DOC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3445A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to eMeritus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eMeritus of the complaint and eMeritus responded on September 24, 2003. eMeritus states that Complainant's service was switched due to an internal keying error. We find that eMeritus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that eMeritus's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3446A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 19, 2003. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3447A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on October 17, 2003. UKI states that Complainant's service was switched due to a technical difficulty in their system. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3448A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 16, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3449A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BWT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BWT of the complaints and BWT responded. BWT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BWT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. BWT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3450A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on August 4, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3451A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Norcom to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on December 16, 2002. OneStar states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when OneStar migrated another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3452A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 14, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3453A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 10, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3455A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3456A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 20, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3457A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to CCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCI of the complaint and CCI responded on August 4, 2003. CCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. CCI, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that CCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3458A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Corporation to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 19, 2003. ACN has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3459A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 29, 2003. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by subscriber. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3461A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 23, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3478A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 8, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, Sprint was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3479A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3480A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACCXX Communications (ACCXX) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 1, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3481A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3482A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3483A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 7, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3484A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 16, 2003. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3486A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaints and Z-Tel responded. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3487A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3488A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. APS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that persons on the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3489A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on February 28, 2003. We find that SBC Long Distance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3490A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to CCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCI of the complaint and CCI responded on July 31, 2003. CCI states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when CCI purchased another company's customer base. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3491A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 22, 2003. Upon review of Silv's response, we find that Silv has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3492A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on February 20, 2003. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3493A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on February 24, 2003. PowerNet states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. PowerNet's verifier, however, confirm that the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3494A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3514A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded on. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3515A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3516A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 8, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3517A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from TTI National to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. Based on information supplied by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3518A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on Sept34mber 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed from AT&T Corporation and Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 10, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3519A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3520A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3528A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 18, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom states, however, that Complainant's long distance service was switched due to a WorldCom data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3529A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3530A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states authorized the change in services. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized any carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss WorldCom's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3531A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3560A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on August 19, 2003. VZLD did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that VZLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VZLD's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3572A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. While not admitting liability for an unauthorized change in the Complainants' service, AT&T states in its response that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3573A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3574A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3575A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3576A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3577A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 10, 2003. AT&T states that it switched the Complainant's service provider in error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3578A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 3, 2002. CTS has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as authorization for the switch. The LOA failed to state that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate preferred carrier, as required by our rules. We find that CTS has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3579A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from XO Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 21, 2001. We find that AT&T was in compliance with our carrier change rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3580A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Fone-Tel to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 7, 2002. AT&T has failed to submit a third party verification tape of letter of agency as proof of authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3581A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 28, 2003. AT&T states in its response that it switched the Complainant's service provider in error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3586A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3587A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on October 22, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3588A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Globalinx Corporation, AT&T to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on July 11, 2003. Capsule did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3589A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on May 12, 2003. SBC Long Distance has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3590A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 30, 2002. LCR submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LCR's third party verifier, however, did not verify all telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3591A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on October 28, 2003. Covista submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Covista's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Covista has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3592A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on July 8, 2003. Opex did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Opex's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3602A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 16, 2003. A review of the third party verification tape indicates that the Complainant did not confirm that she was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3603A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3604A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 21, 2003. WorldCom's states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3605A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in services. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch for Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3606A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 28, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3607A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 20, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3670A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3670A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3670A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Connect America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaint and Connect America responded on October 8, 2003. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3671A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PNG Communications (PNG) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 24, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's verifier, however, failed to confirm two of the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3672A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on April 7, 2003. Clear Choice states that Complainant's service was switched due to a processing error. We find that Clear Choice has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Clear Choice's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3673A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on September 23, 2003. BellSouth has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3674A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from EOT to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on October 8, 2003. 011 states that Complainant's service was accidently and erroneously switched during a network changeover to incorporate new equipment into 011's system. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3675A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PromiseVision to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 30, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3676A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Allegiance to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on October 15, 2003. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Broadview's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3677A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on October 17, 2003. Vartec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Vartec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3678A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Primus Telecommunications Inc., (Primus) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 10, 2003. WorldCom admits that it inadvertently changed Complainant's long distance service without authorization and verification. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3679A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3680A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 1, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom, however, states that they are unable to locate the third party verification tape for this complaint. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3682A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3683A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3684A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that it is unable to produce recorded copies of the third party verifications as proof of authorization for these carrier changes. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3685A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 24, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's sales representative, however failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. Also, Sprint's verifier failed to obtain separate authorizations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3686A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 22, 2001. We find that Sprint was in compliance with our rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3687A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 5, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3688A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 12, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3689A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Dial-a-round Enterprises, Inc. (Dial-a-round) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 6, 2003. We find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3690A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's accounts were established when they received a signed Letter of Agency (LOA), or through third party verifications (TPV). However, Sprint was not able to forward copies of the signed LOA or a recorded copy of the TPV. Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3691A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 3, 2003. Although we conclude that Sprint did not obtain the subscriber's actual authorization to change subscriber's preferred telecommunications carrier, the United State Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit has interpreted Section 258 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require only that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3692A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telephone Company (BellSouth) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 7, 2003. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3693A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3694A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3695A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint's letters of authorization, however, forced the consumers to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3696A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 29, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3697A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NetOne Communications (NetOne) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 31, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprints verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3701A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each services sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3702A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on October 28, 2003. IDT states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3703A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on October 22, 2003. Preferred Billing has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3704A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to CIMCO without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CIMCO of the complaint and CIMCO responded on November 3, 2003. CIMCO indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CIMCO's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier may be designated for each service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3705A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Mercury without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mercury of the complaint and Mercury responded on October 7, 2003. We find that Mercury did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3706A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing to Discount Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount Plus of the complaint and Discount Plus responded on May 5, 2003. Discount Plus submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Discount Plus's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3707A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Local without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Local of the complaint and Local responded on August 22, 2003. Local admits that it inadvertently changed Complaint's service without authorization. We find that Local has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Local's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3708A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 26, 2002. Sprint did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3709A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 10, 2002. Based on their response, as well as information we obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3710A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from XO Communications to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 11, 2002. Qwest did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3711A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on December 16, 2002. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. APS's sales representatives failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3712A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 30, 2003. VarTec states that Complainant's service was switched due to an internal processing error. We find that VarTec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3713A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on May 2, 2003. PowerNet states that Complainant's service was switched in error. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PowerNet's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. APS submitted third party verification tapes as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. APS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way call was established, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3715A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on September 25, 2003. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. U.S. Telecom's verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3716A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on December 16, 2002. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that APS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3717A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 20, 2003. Qwest submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Qwest's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3718A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on October 1, 2003. Connect states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Connect purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3719A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SBC), to Free Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Free Network of the complaint and Free Network responded on October 21, 2003. Free Network did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Free Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3720A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ILab without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ILab of the complaint and ILab responded on October 14, 2003. We find that ILab did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3733A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cable & Wireless to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 3, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape as authorization for the switch. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to confirm the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3734A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 10, 2003. AT&T admits that it switched the Complainant's local toll and long distance service due to a provisioning error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized those carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3735A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3750A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on November 7, 2003. ClearWorld states that Complainant's service was unintentionally changed due to a clerical error. We find that ClearWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ClearWorld's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3751A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 24, 2003. VarTec states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched due to an order entry error. We find that VarTec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3752A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on March 17, 2003. International did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that International's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3753A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Globalinx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalinx of the complaints and Globalinx responded. Globalinx's responses do not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that Globalinx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3754A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 7, 2002. Verizon has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by it in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3755A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 3, 2003. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3756A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on September 25, 2003. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. ADST's verifier, however, failed to obtain separated authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3757A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 7, 2003. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. Primus's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3758A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on November 13, 2003. Global indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Global's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier may be designated for each service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on March 4, 2002. Americatel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Americatel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3762A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Z-Tel Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 17, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party tape as verification for the switch. The verifier, however, has failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as according to our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3763A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 11, 2003. AT&T has submitted an letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. However, the check that has been submitted does not contain the subscriber's address and phone number to be changed as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3764A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3765A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3768A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on September 17, 2003. ACN states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3769A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on October 14, 2003. SBCLD has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3770A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on March 4, 2003. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's sales agent, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3771A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on September 17, 2003. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clearworld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3772A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on September 3, 2003. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform the Complainant that only one carrier can be designated interstate or interLATA carrier, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3773A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Frontier to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on October 15, 2003. Connect states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Connect purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3774A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on March 31, 2003. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3775A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on September 22, 2003. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3776A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 6, 2003. Qwest states that Complainant's service was switched when it entered another customer's information incorrectly. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3783A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3784A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from VarTec Telecom, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3790A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3791A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3792A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3793A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3795A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 1, 2003. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3796A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 4, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3797A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3800A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 16, 2003. ACN did not submit a third party verification or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3801A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global Communications to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on July 28, 2003. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3802A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and AT&T to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on October 13, 2003. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3803A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 6, 2003. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3804A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 18, 2003. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3805A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Starpower without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Starpower of the complaint and Starpower responded on October 20, 2003. Starpower did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Starpower has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Starpower's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3806A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications (SBC) to UCS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCS of the complaint and UCS responded on July 15, 2003. UCS states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that UCS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UCS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3807A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 28, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3808A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 17, 2003. Qwest did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3809A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Mobility to Momentum without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Momentum of the complaint and Momentum responded on September 23, 2003. Momentum states that Complainant's service was inadvertently switched. We find that Momentum has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Momentum's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3810A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on October 27, 2003. Americatel did not submit a third party verification for Complainant or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Americatel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3811A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on October 10, 2003. International states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3812A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on September 23, 2003. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3813A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on October 8, 2002. Business Options states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business Options's verifier, however, failed to ask whether that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3814A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 24, 2003. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3815A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Options without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaints and Business Options responded. Business Options indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. Business Options's verifier, however, failed to ask whether that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. Business Options has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3816A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Options without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaints and Business Options responded. Business Options indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. Business Options's verifier, however, did not confirm that Complainants' wanted to switch their intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3827A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3828A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3829A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3830A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 25, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3831A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 16, 2003. We find that AT&T was in compliance with our carrier change rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3833A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 7, 2003. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3834A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Covista to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 4, 2003. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. During the verification process, however, the answer to the question of whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change was unclear. We find that AT&T has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3835A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Clear Choice Communications (CCC) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 21, 2003. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3836A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed and third party verifications (TPV) were received and confirmed. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of neither the TPV nor a signed LOA. Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3837A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3838A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 23, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3839A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Hold Billing Services (HBS) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 5, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the consumer as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3840A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 3, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed through their website. Sprint's LOA, however, forced the consumer to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3841A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3857A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 30, 2003. WorldCom states that authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3858A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 19, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant signed up via the internet. WorldCom, however, did not provide a complete letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules as the LOA was undated. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3859A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 2, 2003. zWorldCom states that they are unable to retrieve the third party verification tape. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3860A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 29, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service and that the third party verification representative failed to obtain a clear response from Complainant indicating that he was authorized to make the switch in service. We find that WorldCom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3862A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 28, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's number was inadvertently added. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3927A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3928A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 5, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3929A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 11, 2003. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3930A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 7, 2003. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3950A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from FonTel Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 1, 2002. Based on information provided by local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3951A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Ivantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ivantage of the complaint and Ivantage responded on September 30 2003. Ivantage indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Ivantage's LOA, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Ivantage has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3952A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Optical without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaints and Optical responded. Optical however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Optical's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3953A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on November 24, 2003. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3954A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3955A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 24, 2003. LDCB submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LDCB's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3956A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Optical without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaints and Optical responded. Optical indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Optical's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3957A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on October 10, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3958A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on September 29, 2003. 011 did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that 011's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3959A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Globcom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaints and Globcom responded. Globcom however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3960A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on August 27, 2002. Network did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Network's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3962A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from KISSLD to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 3, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3963A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 11, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3964A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's international service had been changed from Verizon Hawaii to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in Complainant's international service. Complainant resides in the State of Hawaii. Hawaii is the only state in the United States that requires separate authorization for international service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3965A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on November 24, 2003. Connect states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Connect purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3972A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Services to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on May 20, 2003. OneStar submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneStar's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that OneStar has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3973A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on October 1, 2003. Connect states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Connect purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3974A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on December 1, 2003. U.S. Telecom submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. U.S. Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3975A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003 alleging that Complainant's local toll had been changed from AT&T to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 1, 2003. LDA indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3976A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Choice of the complaint and Choice responded on June 19, 2003. Choice did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of as agency required by our rules. We find that Choice has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Choice's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3977A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to Ionex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ionex of the complaint and Ionex responded on June 16, 2003. Ionex did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Ionex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Ionex's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3978A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on December 3, 2003. Optical did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Optical's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3979A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on October 6, 2003. Covista did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3980A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on October 8, 2003. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3981A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on May 13, 2003. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3982A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3983A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Momentum without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Momentum of the complaints and Momentum responded. Momentum however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Momentum has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Momentum's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3986A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 3, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3987A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3988A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 6, 2003. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3989A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3990A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3992A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 31, 2003. Sprint states that an account was established for Complainant as a result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3993A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 17, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. However, Sprint was unable to provide a copy of the LOA signed by Complainant. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3994A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3995A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed or when third party verifications (TPV's) were performed. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOA's or TPV recordings. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3997A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 22, 2003. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3998A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on November 14, 2003. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3999A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Touchtone Communications (Touchtone) to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on October 27, 2003. Capsule did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4000A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on November 24, 2003. OneLink did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4001A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Direct Connect Communications (DCC) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 6, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4002A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BFI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BFI of the complaints and BFI responded. BFI states that Complainants' service was inadvertently placed into their database. BFI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that BFI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss BFI's liability below.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4003A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Vox without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaints and Vox responded. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of authorization were electronically submitted. Vox's electronic LOAs', however, failed to contain electronic signatures, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4004A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on November 21, 2003. Vartec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Vartec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4005A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on November 10, 2003. OneLink did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4006A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on October 31, 2003. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4007A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on November 21, 2003. We find that Vartec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4008A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on October 10, 2003. Broadview did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadview's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4009A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on September 23, 2003. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4010A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on November 12, 2003. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4011A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on November 12, 2003. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4012A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on October 23, 2003. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone number(s) to be switched and did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4013A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 18, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated interstate or intraLATA toll carrier, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4014A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Connect America without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaints and Connect America responded. Connect America states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4015A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4016A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Global without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Global has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4017A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI states that Complainants service was switched due to technical difficulties. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4018A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has no violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4019A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4020A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 1, 2003. Upon review of WorldCom's response, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4072A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4073A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4074A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4100A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's (type of service) had been changed from American Phone Services to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on November 21, 2003. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cox's verifier, however, failed to received separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4101A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on October 31, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4102A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on October 6, 2003. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4103A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on June 18, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4104A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to BetterWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BetterWorld of the complaint and BetterWorld responded on October 21, 2003. BetterWorld did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that BetterWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BetterWorld's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4105A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on July 1, 2003. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. Vox's LOA, however, failed to contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4106A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on August 4, 2003. Connect America states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-4107A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaint and USA responded on March 24, 2003. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-499A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CloseCall without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on December 30, 2002. CloseCall admits they made an error in switching complainant's service. We find that CloseCall has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CloseCall's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-500A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST submitted third party verification tapes as evidence of an authorized change in Complainants' service providers. ADST automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched and did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-501A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched and did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-503A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 21, 2002. CTS states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, Complainant's telephone number was not the number on the LOA. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-504A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on January 23, 2003. IDT states when they transferred active customers from one underlying carrier to another underlying carrier they mistakenly included local and intraLATA toll service for the Complainant. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-505A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to PromiseVision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PromiseVision of the complaint and PromiseVision responded on January 28, 2003. PromiseVision indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PromiseVision automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that PromiseVision has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-506A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded on January 8, 2003. Quantumlink states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was signed. QuantumLink's LOA, however, does not contain the Complainant's billing address and each number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that QuantumLink
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-507A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance of the complaint and Long Distance responded on December 30, 2002. Long Distance states that it unintentionally changed the telecommunications service provider for Complainant due to an inadvertent processing error. We find that Long Distance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-508A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on January 22, 2003. Capsule states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was signed. Capsule also states they have requested the LOA but it has not arrived. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-509A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-511A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on June 25, 2002. RCN states that they are unable to provide a copy of a signed letter of agency or similar instrument. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that RCN's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-512A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on September 20021. RCN provided a signed letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules. RCN's LOA did not contain clear and legible language nor did it confirm that the Complainant understood that only one carrier may be chosen for each service. Further, RCN's LOA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-513A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on March 4, 2002. RCN states that the Complainant was approached by a door-to-door sales representative on behalf of RCN. They are unable to retrieve a letter of agency for the Complainant. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-514A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold toeach Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-515A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 12, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-516A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2002, alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Telecom*USA to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 18, 2002. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-517A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 21, 2002. WCSS states that Complainant authorized the change in both intraLATA toll and long distance service. WCSS failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-518A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 16, 2002. WCSS states that the Complainant authorized the change in services. WCSS' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. Further, WCSS failed to confirm that the Complainant wanted to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Verizon to Essential.com without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Essential.com of the complaint and Essential.com responded on June 26, 2001. Essential.com submitted a letter of agency signed by the Complainant authorizing the switch. Essential.com's letter of agency, however, did not confirm the Complainant's address as required by our rules. Nor did it inform the Complainant that only one carrier may be designated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-519A2.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Verizon to Essential.com without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Essential.com of the complaint and Essential.com responded on June 26, 2001. Essential.com submitted a letter of agency signed by the Complainant authorizing the switch. Essential.com's letter of agency, however, did not confirm the Complainant's address as required by our rules. Nor did it inform the Complainant that only one carrier may be designated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-520A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on October 7, 2002. Lightyear states that they are unable to provide any written or verbal verification of the change in service. Lightyear failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-521A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on June 11, 2002. TeleUno states that Complainant authorized the change in service. TeleUno, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-522A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 12, 2002. ATC states that Complainant authorized the change in service. ATC's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain a separate authorization for Complainant's intraLATA services as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-523A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on December 28, 2001. Yestel states that they have no record of the Complainant wanting to cancel their service. A translation of Yestel's third party verification tape clearly shows that the Complainant twice stated that they did not want Yestel's long distance service. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-524A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from Ameritech and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on April 9, 2002. McLeod states that Complainant authorized the change in service. McLeod failed to produce a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-525A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon and WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 16, 2002. CTS provided a letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules. CTS' LOA, however, was signed by the Complainant's 15 year old son who is not an adult person authorized to make changes in telecommunications services or to charge services to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-526A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Cierracom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cierracom of the complaint and Cierracom responded on June 6, 2002. Cierracom produced a letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules. Cierracom's LOA failed to inform the consumer that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change in the subscriber's preferred carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-527A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WebNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaint and WebNet responded on September 3, 2002. WebNet states that Complainant authorized the switch in service. WebNet's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched; and the types of service involved. WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-528A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2001 alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to Least Cost without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Least Cost of the complaint and Least Cost responded on September 14, 2001. Least Cost states that Complainant authorized the change in service. It is unclear from the verification tape, however, whether the person on the recording wants to switch their business phone number, home phone number or both. We find that Least
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-529A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on September 6, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, despite numerous requests from the Commission, UKI has failed to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-530A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 19, 2002. Broadview states that Complainant's service was inadvertently transferred back to Broadview as a part of a scheduled migration of service. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-531A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on October 15, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Talk could not provide a recorded copy of the verification. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-532A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 12, 2002. Talk states that Complainants service was switched due to an processing error when another customer signed and cashed a promotional check with the Complainants telephone number on it. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-533A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 30, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. However, after review of the third party verification tape, we have determined that the person on the tape is not the complainant as the Complainant is female and the person
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-534A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-535A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 20, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-536A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 1, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency was signed and submitted. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-537A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 12, 2002. Sprint states that when placing the order for her long distance service, a keying error occurred and Complainant's local toll service was switched inadvertently. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-538A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 17, 2003. Sprint states that an account was established for Complainant based on a service order received from Sprint PCS. Sprint, however, could not locate the signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-539A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 7, 2002. ACN indicated that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency was processed and submitted by Complainant. The signature on ACN's LOA, however, does not resemble that of the complainant. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-540A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Verizon to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 3, 2003. ADST states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verification company. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-541A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Sprint to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on August 14, 2002. LDS states that it unintentionally changed the long distance service due to an inadvertent processing error. We find that LDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-542A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to ATS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 20, 2002. ATS states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was accidentally switched. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ATS actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-543A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on December 13, 2002. RSL's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification taped (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that RSL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-544A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Qwest to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 8, 2002. CTS states that the changes to Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS admit that the Complainant was mistakenly switched due to a data processing error. We find that CTS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-545A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to CTS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 6, 2002. CTS indicated that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency (LOA) was processed and submitted by Complainant. CTS's LOA, however, failed to confirm the date and that the subscriber understood that only one carrier can be designated for each service, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-546A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to BSP without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on December 23, 2002. BSP indicates that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency (LOA) was processed and submitted by Complainant. However, the name on the LOA is Complainant's eight year old daughter who therefore cannot provide authorization to change Complainant's service. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-547A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on January 29, 2002. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's telecommunications service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-548A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from ECG to GTC without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on June 21, 2001. GTC states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service providers was verified by a third party verification company. GTC's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. In addition, GTC's verification tape
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-549A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Ameritech to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on January 29, 2003. ClearWorld states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. ClearWorld's third party verifier, however, failed to verify the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-550A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on January 22, 2003. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through by third party verification. ATC's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-552A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-572A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from RSL Communication to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on November 15, 2002. 011 stated that the Complainant authorized the change in services. 011's third party verifier failed to elicit the telephone number to be switched, and failed to obtain separate authorization for each service as required by our rules. We find that 011 failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-573A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to Qwest without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 24, 2003. Qwest states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was entered incorrectly into its database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-574A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Sprint to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 23, 2003. LCR states that it changed the long distance service due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-575A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint and NOS responded on December 27, 2002. NOS states that complainant's service was switched when someone else's number were keyed into the system. We find that NOS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NOS's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-576A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's verifier, however, failed confirm the telephone numbers to be switched and failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-577A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to IP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IP of the complaint and IP responded on January 14, 2003. IP indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through by third party verification. IP's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. IP's third party verifier also failed to confirm the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-578A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to Excel without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on April 19, 2002. Excel states that the change to Complainant's telecommunications service provider was verified by a third party verification company. Excel's third party verification tape indicates that, the person on the recording gave a birthdate of January 16, 1984. According to Excel, the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-589A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-590A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided the proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized AT&T to become the Complainant's authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-591A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 19, 2002. AT&T indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-592A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GTC Telecom to ServiSense without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ServiSense of the complaint and ServiSense responded on April 15, 2002. ServiSense indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ServiSense's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that ServiSense has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-593A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 10, 2002. Qwest indicates that the Complainant's number was inadvertently added to an unrelated customer's account. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-594A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 23, 2002. AT&T states that the Complainant's number was inadvertently added to an unrelated customer's account. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-595A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T admits that they switched the Complainants' in error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss AT&T's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-644A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 28, 2001. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-648A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carries should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint on July 19, 2001. eLec has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of eLec to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that eLec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's local, intraLATA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-649A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on October 16, 2002. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS' automated verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold. Also, WCSS' verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that WCSS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-650A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Tele Uno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Uno of the complaint and Tele Uno responded on June 11, 2002. Tele Uno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Tele Uno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Tele Uno has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-651A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on May 3, 2002. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). It was determined that the person recorded on the TPV recording is not the Complainant and does not have authorization to make the carrier switch. We find that VLD
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-652A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 15, 2002. Sprint states that when placing the order for her long distance service, a keying error occurred and Complainant's local toll service was switched inadvertently. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-653A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon and Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 22, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's line was switched in error when they misread the number on the letter of agency (LOA). We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-654A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications (Excel) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 19, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, did not confirm subscriber's billing name, and address as required by our rules. Also, on Sprint's LOA the complainant checked the box
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-655A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Norstar to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 19, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, the complainant did not indicate what service or services the Complainant was authorizing Sprint to switch. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-656A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Earth Tones to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 28, 2003. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency (LOA) and submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber designates Sprint to act as their agent for change, understands that only one carrier can be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-657A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 28, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, did not contain a signature or date as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-658A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ADT to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 29, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, did not confirm the subscriber's billing name, address and each number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-659A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forces the consumer to de-select any services they do not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-660A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 6, 2002. Sprint states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. Sprint however, cannot locate the signed LOA. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-661A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on December 13, 2002. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-662A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on November 8, 2002. SBC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, SBC states they are unable to locate a TPV for the change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-663A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 13, 2001. Sprint indicates that the account was established to bill for a collect call made using a Sprint operator. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-664A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. NAI's LOA, however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-665A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on October 10, 2002. ADST did not submit any evidence to confirm Complainant authorized a switch. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-666A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 10, 2002. Sprint states that the service request was verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want. We find this practice to be a violation of our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-667A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on January 22, 2003. Capsule states they failed to recognize closed accounts and inadvertently switched several customers. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-668A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on January 31, 2002. ADST did not submit any evidence that Complainant authorized a switch in telecommunications service provider. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-669A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Choice One without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Choice One of the complaint and Choice One responded on December 4, 2002. Choice One states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. Choice One admits that Complainant's interLATA service was set-up in error. We find that Choice One has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-672A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 11, 2002. AT&T submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, the third party verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-673A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-673A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-673A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 22, 2002. According to AT&T's response, Complainant's telecommunications service was switched when the previous subscriber of the phone number cashed the promotional check. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-674A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 14, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, the verifier has failed to obtain confirmation that the person was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-675A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2002. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-676A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 16, 2002. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as verification for the switch. The signature on the LOA, however, does not match that of the signature of the Complainant on the complaint. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-677A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 29, 2002. AT&T provided a letter of agency which included the Complainant's signature, however; it does not match the Complainant's actual signature. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-678A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on July 19, 2002. Clearworld has submitted a third party verification tape. Clearworld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-679A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on June 7, 2002. Global submitted a third party verification tape. Global's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-680A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001, that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed from AT&T Corporation to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on May 14, 2002. CTS has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-681A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Asian without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Asian of the complaint and Asian responded on April 22, 2002. Asian indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Asian's verifier, however, failed to elicit the following information required by our rules: the telephone numbers to be switched; the types of service involved; and the confirmation that the person
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-682A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on April 12, 2002. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to elicit the following information required by our rules: the telephone numbers to be switched, the types of service involved and that the consumer wanted to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-683A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed to Integriss without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integriss of the complaint and Integriss responded on March 12, 2002. Integriss has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Integriss in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-684A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 1, 2002. Excel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-698A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that complainant's long service had been changed from WorldTeq to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules. We notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 29, 2002. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-699A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 23. LCR states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched as the result of a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-700A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ATC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaints and ATC responded. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-701A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to PCMG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PCMG of the complaint and PCMG responded on February 21, 2003. PCMG's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that PCMG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-702A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 14, 2003. ADST's response does not include a signed letter of agency (LOA) nor does it include a third party verification (TPV) as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-703A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on October 29 2002. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Broadview was unable to locate a copy of the recorded third party verification. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-704A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BuyersOnline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BuyersOnline of the complaint and BuyersOnline responded on January 28 2003. BuyersOnline states that authorization was received and confirmed through an electronic letter of agency (LOA). However, BuyersOnline was unable to locate a copy of the LOA. We find that BuyersOnline has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-705A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on February 25, 2003. WCSS indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-706A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on February 5, 2003. Main Street indicated that authorization was received when a letter of agency was processed and submitted by Complainant. Main Street's LOA, however, failed to contain the subscriber's electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Main Street has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-707A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Qwest to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on October 22, 2002. CTS states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, failed to confirm the date as required by our rules. We find that CTS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-709A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T provided the proper letter of agency or third party verification which authorized AT&T to become the Complainants' authorized telecommunications service provider. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-710A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2001 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on July 1, 2002. Allegiance indicates that authorization was received when a valid letter of authorization was signed giving permission for the change. We find that Allegiance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-711A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on July 31, 2002. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make a carrier change as required by our r+ules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-712A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 3, 2002. CTS has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-713A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 27, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). LCR's verifier, however, failed to comfirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-714A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications Company (BellSouth) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 8, 2002. Talk states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, the answers to questions asked by the verifier were inaudible. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-715A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 10, 2002 Talk indicates that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-716A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 12, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-717A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 30, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted and processed. Sprints' signed LOA, however failed to confirm the date as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-718A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from RCN to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint states authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted and processed. Sprint's LOA, however, failed to confirm the date as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-719A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-720A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 23, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Complainant states in the complaints that the person giving Sprint authorization is their 19 year old son who has a learning disability with no clear understanding of what was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-722A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Savings Plan without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaint and Business Savings Plan responded. Business Savings Plan states that it does not have letters of agency (LOAs) or third party verification recordings (TPVs) because the Complainants' accounts were acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk without an LOA or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-723A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT& T Corporation to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 6, 2002. CTS produced a valid letter of agency from Complainant. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-724A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on August 6, 2002. Axces states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Axces, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Axces has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-725A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on September 4, 2002. UKI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI failed to confirm the number to be switched and whether the Complainant wanted to make the carrier change. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-726A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from UKI Communications, (UKI) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on August 21, 2002. UKI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. UKI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-727A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 2, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-728A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Savings Plan without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaint and Business Savings Plan responded. Business Savings Plan states that it does not have letters of agency (LOAs) or third party verification recordings (TPVs) because the Complainants' accounts were acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk without an LOA or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-729A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Lightyear Communications, Inc., (Lightyear) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 31, 2002. LCR states that a representative of Complainant authorized the change in long distance. It is unclear, however, whether the person on the recording is authorizing her home or work phone number to be switched. We find that LCR has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-730A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CierraCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CierraCom of the complaint and CierraCom responded on February 7, 2003. CierraCom states Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CierraCom's LOA, however, does not contain the telephone number(s) to be covered by the preferred carrier change as required by our rules. We find that CierraCom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-731A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on December 13, 2002. Yestel's verifier, however, failed to elicit the following information required by our rules: confirmation that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change; the telephone numbers to be switched; and the types of service involved. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-732A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-733A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 15, 2002. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-734A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, and did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-735A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint states that the service requests were verified through an electronically signed letter of agency. However, the LOA requires that the complainant de-select services they do not want, we find this to be in violation rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-736A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 13, 2002. LCR indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, LCR did not confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-737A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on February 7, 2003. 011 indicate that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-738A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Callwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Callwave of the complaint and Callwave responded on October 15, 2002. Callwave states they are an enhanced service provider and do not provide basic telephone services. We find that Callwave has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-739A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-740A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 19, 2002. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-746A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance (Adelphia) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 28, 2002. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, it was unclear whether the authorization was for the business or home telephone. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-749A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WNS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WNS of the complaint and WNS responded on August 6, 2001. WNS states that it has never been Complainant's preferred telecommunications carrier. We find that WNS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-877A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 21, 2002. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-878A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January3, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SWB) to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on April 29, 2002. We find that Allegiance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-879A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WebNet of the complaints and WebNet responded. WebNet has failed to provide the required proof of authorization as described in our rules. We find that WebNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WebNet's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-880A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. CTS indicate that authorization was received when a letters of agency (LOA) was signed by Complainants and submitted. The LOAs have completely different names than the Complainants and the addresses on the LOAs are not the Complaints'. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-881A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on September 12, 2002. Business indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-882A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on September 24, 2002. CTS states that Complainant's telephone number was switched as the result of a keying error. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-883A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on February 19, 2003. LDCB indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-884A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 29, 2002. Global submitted a third party verification tape. According to the tape, when asked if over 18 and the decision maker, the person on the tape said, ``yes, I am over 18'', but did not confirm that they were authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-885A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to APS without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on May 23, 2002. APS states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was accidentally switched due to a system error. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that APSs' actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-886A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on December 12, 2002. CBI did not submit any evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-887A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 31, 2002. Advantage indicates authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifier. Advantage's verifier, however, did not receive separate authorization for each service sold. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-888A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on December 31, 2002. CTS states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed. The name on the LOA, however, does not in any way resemble the name of the Complainant nor does the LOA contain the correct address. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-889A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on January 17, 2003. CTS states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed. The name on the LOA, however, does not in any way resemble the name of the Complainant nor does it contain the correct address. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-890A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ServiSense without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ServiSense of the complaint and ServiSense responded on December 18, 2002. ServiSense indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ServiSense's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that ServiSense has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-891A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBI of the complaint and CBI responded on January 22, 2003. CBI did not submit any evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that CBI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-892A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 9, 2002. Sprint indicates that verification was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-893A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002 alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Global TelData without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaint and Global TelData responded on November 4, 2002. Global TelData indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Global TelData has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-894A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Sprint's letter of authorization, however, forced the Complainants to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-895A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAI of the complaints and NAI responded. NAI has submitted electronic filings as letters of agency (LOA) for each Complainant. NAI's LOAs, however, did not include an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that NAI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-896A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to ServiSense without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ServiSense of the complaint and ServiSense responded on December 10, 2001. ServiSense states that Complainant's wife authorized the change in service. ServiSense' third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that ServiSense has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-897A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 27, 2002. ACN produced a letter of agency (LOA) as required by our rules. ACN's letter of agency contained a signature with the name of the Complainant's husband. However, the Complainant's husband was deceased at the time that the LOA was signed. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-898A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's intercalate toll and long distance service had been changed from Verizon and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on June 28, 2002. ADST states that Complainant authorized the change in services. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the complainant as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-899A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 21, 2001. Qwest states that Complainant authorized the change in service. Qwest's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-900A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 8, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant's account was established after receiving an order from Ameritech. Ameritech provided information that Complainant terminated service with them on March 21, 2001, making it impossible for them to have issued an order on July 27, 2001, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-901A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on May 29, 2002. APS states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. APS' third party verifier, however, failed to confirm which telephone numbers were to be changed and elicited no personally identifiable information as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-902A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Ameritech and WorldCom, Inc., to TTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TTI of the complaint and TTI responded on December 14, 2001. We find that TTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-903A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2001 alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications (Capsule) to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on December 18, 2001. PowerNet stated that they had purchased the database of another company and had complied with Commission rules in notifying the customers. We find that PowerNet has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-904A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from ACN Communications, Inc., (ACN) to National Accounts without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Accounts of the complaint and National Accounts responded on March 27, 2002. National Accounts states that the Complainant authorized the change in service and produced an electronic letter of agency (LOA). National Accounts electronic LOA did not conform to our rules. We find that National Accounts has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-905A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2002, alleging that complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 10, 2002. Excel states that Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-906A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 6, 2001. WorldCom states that the Complainant authorized the change in the local service. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-907A1.txt
  • that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) and Verizon to Business Savings Plan without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Savings Plan of the complaint and Business Savings Plan responded on October 9, 2001. Business Savings Plan states that they acquired the Complainant's account from another's company's database. Business savings states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because the customer's account was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-908A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Complainant's long distance carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 18, 2002. Qwest states that the Complainant's account was set up via the internet. Qwest, however, failed to provide a valid electronically signed letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-909A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local and intraLATA toll services had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on July 3, 2002. McLeod states that Complainant authorized the change in services. McLeod has failed to provide a valid third party verification tape or letter of authorization as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-910A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Ivantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ivantage of the complaint and Ivantage responded on May 2, 2002. Ivantage stated that a letter of agency was used to convert the Complainant's service. Ivantage's letter of agency, however, failed to include the address of the Complainant as required by our rules. Further, Ivantage included a binding arbitration clause which is in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-911A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint and Frontier responded on March 20, 2002. Frontier states that Complainant is not a customer of either Frontier's local or long distance service. The Complainant's bill indicates, however, that the Complainant had incurred a long distance charge from Frontier. We find that Frontier has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-912A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. In each case, WorldCom states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. WorldCom's third party verifer, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to each Complaint as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-914A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002, alleging that complainant's long service had been changed from AT&T to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on July 8, 2002. We find that Business Options has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-915A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on February 25, 2003. ACN indicated that authorization was received when a Letter of Agency was processed and submitted by Complainant. The signature on ACN's LOA, however, does not resemble that of the complainant. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-916A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on November 7, 2002. McLeodUSA states that the changes to Complainants telecommunications service providers were verified by a third party verifications company. The verification, however, consist of two partial verifications by two separate people. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-917A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's failed to provide a third party verification tape as require by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-918A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Worldcom to UKI without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on February 6, 2003. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-919A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from CGI Communications to ATC without complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on March 4, 2003. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. ATC's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-920A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on March 5, 2003. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-923A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on August 19, 2002. ATC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-924A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on May 17, 2002. We find that Broadwing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-925A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-926A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 22, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier changes as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-927A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to CoreComm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreComm of the complaint and CoreComm responded on May 20, 2002. CoreComm has submitted a letter of agency as verification for the switch as required by our rules. We find that CoreComm has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-928A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets Long Distance (Working Assets) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 22, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier changes as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-929A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Epicus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Epicus of the complaint and Epicus responded on April 17, 2002. Epicus has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the phone number to be switched. We find that Epicus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-930A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to Norstar without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norstar of the complaints and Norstar responded. Norstar states that it does not have a letter of agency (LOA) or third party verification recording (TPV) because the customer's account was acquired during a bulk transfer. Our rules allow carriers to transfer customers in bulk without an LOA or TPV. A carrier must, however,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-931A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 30, 2002. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape for the Complainant. The verifier, however, received confirmation from the previous subscriber of this phone number to switch the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-932A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-933A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-934A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 21, 2001 We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-935A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 7, 2002. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-936A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-937A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on November 20, 2001. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-938A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATI of the complaint and ATI responded on February 8, 2002. We find that ATI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-939A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 2, 2001. AT&T states that no order to switch the Complainant's number was received. Complainant's local exchange carrier, however, provided evidence that an electronic request from AT&T was received on March 2, 2001, to switch the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-940A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 8, 2002. AT&T response states that an order was received from the local exchange carrier (LEC) on October 18, 2001. The LEC response, received October 23, 2002, states that the order was initiated by AT&T on October 8, 2001 and executed October 18, 2001.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-945A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on February 14, 2003. RCN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change and the telephone number to be switched required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-946A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Capsule without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Capsule of the complaint and Capsule responded on February 11, 2003. Capsule states they subscribed the Complainant's account without the complete documentation that their operating procedures normally require. We find that Capsule has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Capsule's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-947A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SWB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWB of the complaint and SWB responded on February 25, 2003. SWB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SWB, however, can not locate the third party verification tape. We find that SWB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-948A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 10, 2003. ADST did not submit any evidence that proved Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-949A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 20, 2003. ADST indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, the verification company that ADST utilizes has been unable to provide verification. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-950A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on December 6, 2002. Business Options states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business Options verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules. We find that Business Options has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-951A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Cierracom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cierracom of the complaint and Cierracom responded on February 24, 2003. Cierracom states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Cierracom's LOA, however, contains only one telephone to be covered by the preferred carrier change. Cierracom switched telephone number(s) that were not listed on the LOA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-952A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 10, 2003. ADST has not produced any evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-953A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on October 22, 2002. CTS states that the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization was signed and processed. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-954A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on February 7, 2003. ACN states they are unable to locate the letter of authorization (LOA) they received from the Complainant. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-955A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 20, 2003. CTS states authorization was received when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, does not contain the correct address for the Complainant. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-956A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 25, 2003. Qwest states that Complainant's service was switched when it was entered into its system in error. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-957A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Norcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norcom of the complaint and Norcom responded on January 16, 2003. Norcom states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. However, Norcom's electronic LOA does not contain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Norcom has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-958A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on February 26, 2003. ACN states that they received authorization when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. However, the signature on the LOA bears no resemblance to the signature on the Complainant's complaint. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-959A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on January 14, 2003. McLeodUSA did not provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-960A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on January 27, 2002. Excel states that Complainant's service was changed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed. Excel states that the consumer has been their customer since 1998 and that they failed to cancel the customers account. The customer, however, had been a Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-961A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ADST's automated verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone numbers to be switched and did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-962A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, WCSS states they have requested the verification tape but their verification company has not produced the tape. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-963A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, and did not receive separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-969A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-970A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone numbers were inadvertently added to the accounts of existing Sprint customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-971A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 11, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, received verification from Complainant's daughter who is 16 years old and therefore cannot be authorized to change Complainant's service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-972A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Essential.Com to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 12, 2002. Sprint indicates authorization was received when Complainant signed and submitted a letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, did not confirm that the subscriber designates Sprint to act as the subscriber's agent for the preferred carrier change, or that the subscriber understands
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-973A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV) or when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted and processed. However, Sprint could not produce a copy of the signed LOA or a recorded copy of the TPV. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-974A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone numbers were inadvertently added to the accounts of existing Sprint customers. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-975A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were switched when another Sprint customer inadvertently provided the complainant's telephone number as the number to be switched. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-976A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-977A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a Sprint customer's mistakenly included Complainants' phone numbers letters of agency. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-978A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 6, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). After reviewing the TPV recording, it was determined that the person on the tape was not the complainant and their name bears no relation to Complainant's name. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-979A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 19, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency (LOA) and submitted. Sprint's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber designates Sprint to act as the agent to make the, understands that only one carrier can
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-980A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 11, 2003. Sprint states that another customer provided Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-981A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were changed when a letter of agency (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-982A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that they are unable to produce valid letters of agency or third party verification tapes as proof of authorization for these carrier changes as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-983A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 4, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched as the result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-984A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' serviced were changed when a letter of authorization (LOA) giving authorization was electronically signed via their website. Sprint's LOA, however, required each subscriber to deselect any service that they did not want which is in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-985A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 18, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, confirmed that caller wanted to switch in-state long distance service. It is unclear whether Sprint's verifier was referring to in-state interLATA or in-state intraLATA service when they
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-986A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or when a signed letter of agency was submitted and processed. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-987A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 10, 2002. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-988A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Northeast Telephone Company (NTC) to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on March 4, 2002. Americatel states that the calls that were billed were placed by or through Complainants telephone lines and equipment using Americatels' access code. We find that Americatel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-989A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on June 21, 2001. eLec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that eLec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-990A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 25, 2002. Talk states that authorization was received through an online sign up was filled out with personal information and submitted. Talk, however, could not provide a copy of a signed electronic letter of agency. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-991A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers have been changed from their authorized carriers to RCN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded. In each case, RCN states that each Complainant authorized the change in their service. RCN produced letters of agency (LOA) for each case cited above according to our rules. RCN's LOAs, however, failed to confirm that each subscriber understands only one telecommunications carrier may be designated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-992A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing Communications (Broadwing) to Zone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zone of the complaint and Zone responded on July 30, 2002. Zone states that authorization was received when Complainant signed and submitted and electronic letter of agency. We find that Zone has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-993A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on August 5, 2002. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-995A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA toll, long distance service had been changed Verizon and Fonetel to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 1, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-996A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's international service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc., (WorldCom) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 24, 2002. Although Qwest claims that the switch of Complainant's service was valid, we are unable to confirm this claim because Qwest did not provide a letter of authorization or third party verification as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-997A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on October 30, 2001. We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-998A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on July 24, 2001. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-999A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Complainant's to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on November 19, 2001. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by it in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-102A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-103A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (Primus) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 3, 2003. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through Third Party Verification. Sprint's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-104A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 14, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency was signed and processed via Sprint website. Sprint's letter of agency, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-105A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-106A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-107A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when Complainant's telephone numbers were provided by another Sprint customer. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed letters of agency or third party verifications. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1109A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD complaint and RRLD responded on December 10, 2003 Based on information provided by RRLD and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that RRLD has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1110A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1111A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each services sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1112A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. We find that Global has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Globals actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1113A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1114A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on (received date) alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 19, 2003. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1115A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaints and Lightyear responded. We find that Lightyear has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Lightyears actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1116A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to VeraNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VeraNet of the complaint and VeraNet responded on January 26, 2004. Upon review of VeraNet's response, we find that VeraNet has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commissions's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1117A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on March 3, 2004. Cavalier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1118A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 1, 2004. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1119A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Atlas without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Atlas of the complaint and Atlas responded on January 21, 2004. We find that Atlas did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1120A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on January 30, 2004. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1121A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATX without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATX of the complaint and ATX responded on June 17, 2002. ATX has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1122A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on January 23, 2004. IDT admits it switched Complainant's service by mistake. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1123A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on December 5, 2003. Upon review of NALD response, we find that NALD has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1124A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Tralee without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tralee of the complaint and Tralee responded on January 21, 2004. Tralee failed to submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Tralee has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Tralee's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1125A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on January 5, 2004. Network states that Complainant's telecommunications carrier was not switched because it does not provide telecommunications service. We find that Network did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1126A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on January 9, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1127A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Clearworld without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaints and Clearworld responded. Clearworld states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants'. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1129A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalcom of the complaint and Globalcom responded on November 12, 2003. Globalcom states the Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched due to its own error. We find that Globalcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globalcom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1130A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on July 14, 2003. SBC Long Distance states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted. SBC Long Distance's LOA is illegible.. We find that SBC Long Distance has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1131A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' local toll had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDA without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaints and LDA responded. LDA indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainants wanted to switch intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1132A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Universal without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaints and Universal responded. Universal however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Universal's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1133A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telenational without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telenational of the complaint and Telenational responded on December 12, 2003. Telenational states that it switched Complainant's telecommunications service provider when one of its corporate customers mistakenly included Complainant's number on a letter of agency. However, the letter of agency provided by Telenational does not, in fact, include Complainant's telephone number. In addition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1134A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on August 15, 2002. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1135A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 1, 2004. Acceris states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Acceris's LOA, however, failed to contain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1136A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 10, 2004. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1137A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1147A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 17, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, an unidentified person, different from the person that answered the other verification questions, answered the questions regarding authorization to make the carrier change. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1148A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 12, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. Also, during the verification process, the Complainant stated that he wished to cancel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1149A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 12, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. Sprint's LOA, however failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA preferred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1150A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 12, 2004. Sprint states that the account was established based on an order forwarded by AOL. However, Sprint was unable to locate a signed letter of agency or a copy of recorded third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1151A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 26, 2004. Sprint states that the account was established based on an in-bound telemarketing call. However, Sprint was unable to locate a copy of a third party verification or letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1152A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name or birth date to the third party verifier was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1153A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed at the request of Sprint business customers who requested a range of numbers, inadvertently including the Complainants' telephone numbers. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed letters of agency or recorded copies of third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1154A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1155A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1156A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained from Sprint and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1157A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1158A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1159A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1160A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 14, 2004. Sprint states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1161A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 16, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched when it was added to the account of another customer. Sprint, however, was unable to provide a signed letter of agency or any other method of verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1162A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when orders for service were forwarded by Sprint PCS. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed letters of agency or any other method of verification. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1163A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 14, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched when a order was forwarded by America Online. Sprint, however, was unable to provide a signed letter of agency of any other method of verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1164A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 16, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's service was switched when an order was forwarded by America Online. Sprint, however, was unable to provide a recorded copy of a third party verification or any other method of verification.. We find that Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1165A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 30, 2004. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Sprint, however has not provided a copy of the signed LOA. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1171A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1172A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that WCSS's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1176A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATSI of the complaint and ATSI responded on December 12, 2003. We find that American Telecommunications Systems, Inc. has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that ATSI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunication service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1177A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on January 28, 2004. We find that National Access Long Distance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunication service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1178A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1180A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1181A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications (Excel) to COC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified COC of the complaint and COC responded on July 29, 2003. COC submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization of the switch. However, the LOA failed to include all the numbers that were switched as required by our rules.. We find that COC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1182A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Telephone Company to Varterc without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on august 18, 2003. We find that Vartec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Vartec's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1183A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwests Communications to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on January 28, 2004. Pioneer has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof the switch. However, Pioneer has failed to obtain an electronic signature on the LOA from the complainant, as required by our rules. We find that Pioneer has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1184A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) to WCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCC of the complaint and WCC responded on August 19, 2003. WCC has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof the switch. However, WCC has failed to obtain an electronic signature on the LOA from the complainant, as required by our rules. We find that WCC has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1186A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to DNS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified DNS of the complaint and DNS responded on June 17, 2003. DNS has failed to submit a third party verification or a letter of agency to authorize the switch, in accordance with our rules. We find that DNS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1187A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on October 27, 2003. Based on information provided by ATS and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that ATS has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1188A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 6, 2003. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Excel actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1189A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on January 16, 2004. Based on information provided by Talk America and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk America has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1190A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1191A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on October 14, 2002. We find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1192A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on January 8, 2004. Upon review of LDCB response, we find that LDCB has complied with the verification requirement of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1193A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom of the complaint and Telecom responded on March 10, 2004. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Telecom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1194A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PromiseVision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PromiseVision of the complaint and PromiseVision responded on January 30, 2004. We find that PromiseVision has did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1195A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on November 24, 2003. We find that Globcom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1196A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to INETBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INETBA of the complaint and INETBA responded on April 23, 2002. We find that INETBA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1197A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on February 6, 2004. We find that Cox did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-11A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-11A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-11A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 25, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's response states that its automated voice response unit misinterpreted the Complainant's telephone number. WorldCom, therefore, switched a number not recorded on the third party verification. We find that WorldCom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1203A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1204A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1205A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 15, 2003. Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1206A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on April 24, 2003. Broadview submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Broadview's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1207A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on February 26, 2004. We find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1208A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from OneStar to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on February 20, 2004. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1209A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to TMC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TMC of the complaint and TMC responded on December 4, 2003. TMC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1210A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NATN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NATN of the complaint and NATN responded on April 23, 2003. NATN has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1211A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each services sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1212A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that Complainants authorized the change in services. WCSS, however, failed to provide a third party verification recordings or letters of agency as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1213A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on March 19, 2004. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1214A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Net222 to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalcom of the complaint and Globalcom responded on March 15, 2004. Globalcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Globalcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globalcom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1215A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on December 16, 2002. VarTec states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. VarTec's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established and failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1216A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 24, 2003. Cordia submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Corida's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1217A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CGI Long to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on April 18, 2003. We find that SBC Long Distance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1220A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 8, 2004. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1221A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 10, 2004. WorldCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of WorldCom response, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1222A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1223A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from MPower Communications to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 29, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1224A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from VarTec Telecommunications, Inc., (VarTec) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. Based on information provided by WorldCom and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1225A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by WorldCom and Complainant's local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1226A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom's of the complaint and WorldCom's responded on October 3, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, erred in informing the Complainant that international service is not part of long distance service. A consumer cannot agree to switch only part of a service. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1227A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1228A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that authorization were received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of WorldCom response, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1229A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 3, 2003. WorldCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of WorldCom's response, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1230A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 1, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1231A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed AT&T Corporation to without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 28, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1269A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4th, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on October 3rd, 2003. Broadview states that on January 10th, 2002, it entered into an asset purchase agreement with Cavalier Telephone LLC. According to Broadview, on Januarary 24th, 2002, it began providing the Complainant with service. In order to ascertain whether an unauthorized carrier change has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-12A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-12A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-12A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 5, 2003. WorldCom did not provide a third party verification tape to substantiate WorldCom's claim that another customer gave them Complainant's number. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1337A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1352A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1353A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 18, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1354A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1355A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 21, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom states, however, that the third party verification tape is not available due to technical issues. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1356A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 16, 2003. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1357A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 11, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1358A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 5, 2004. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1359A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 27, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant's service was acquired by TTI National, a company owned by WorldCom. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1360A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1361A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 29, 2003. WorldCom states that due to equipment failure, they cannot provide a third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1362A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on September 11, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1363A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 23, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1364A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2001 alleging that Complainant's long distance provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 10, 2001. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1365A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 11, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1366A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by WorldCom and Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1367A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom and Verizon to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on April 22, 2003. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1368A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on December 16, 2002. We find that Ameritech has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1369A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on April 22, 2002. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1370A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to BRW without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BRW of the complaint and BRW responded on September 19, 2002. BRW states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. BRW's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that BRW has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1371A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on August 23, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AllTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1372A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1373A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 1, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1374A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on March 25, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LCR's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1375A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 6, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1384A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a third party verification with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1385A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1424A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1425A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained from Sprint and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1426A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1427A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Intermedia to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 20, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1428A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Based on information obtained from Excel and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Excel has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1429A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on December 16, 2002. We find that LDS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1430A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on June 27, 2003. We find that OneLink has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1431A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Based on information obtained from Qwest and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1432A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on August 26, 2003. Based on information provided by Lightyear, we find that Lightyear has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1433A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 27, 2003. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1434A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 9, 2003. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1435A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on April 20, 2004. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We recognize that APS has, in accordance with our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1436A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 5, 2002. Advantage states that it mistakenly entered Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1437A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PromiseVision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PromiseVision of the complaint and PromiseVision responded on April 21, 2004. PromiseVision states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. PromiseVision's LOA, however, did not contain separate statements concerning intraLATA and interLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that PromiseVision has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1438A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Connect America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaint and Connect America responded on March 10, 2004. Connect America states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when they purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1439A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 19, 2002. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1440A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Touch America to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on January 9, 2003. Opex did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Opex's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1441A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We recognize that APS has, in accordance with our rules, filed a certification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1457A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on January 29, 2003. SBC Long Distance has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1458A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 18, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1459A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on September 26, 2003. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1460A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on December 8, 2003. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CBS's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm Complainant wanted to switch intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that CBS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1461A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1462A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets Long Distance to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on March 21, 2003. Global's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We recognize that Global has, in accordance with our rules, filed a certification with the Commission stating that the carrier's sales
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1463A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. Upon review of ACN's responses, we find that ACN has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the names on the LOA's do not match the Complainants' was beyond the control of ACN. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1464A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. UBC states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1465A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaints and Bullseye responded. Bullseye states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Bullseye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Bullseye's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1467A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 26, 2003. We find that Talk did not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1468A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on March 10, 2004. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We recognize that APS has, in accordance with our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1469A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 17, 2003. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We recognize that LDA has, in accordance with our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1470A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on November 4, 2002. LDA submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LDA's third party verifier, however, incorrectly indicated that intraLATA service was in-state long distance. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1472A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS Telecom (TDS) to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on August 16, 2001. ALLTEL states that an ALLTEL representative mistakenly initiated a change in Complainant's services were to ALLTEL. We find that ALLTEL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ALLTEL's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1473A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 29, 2002. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm each telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1474A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were received and processed. The copies of the LOA's provided by Sprint, however, were illegible. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1475A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Yestel to EOT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified EOT of the complaint and EOT responded on April 20, 2004. EOT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that EOT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that EOT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1476A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 20, 2004. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1477A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on February 21, 2003. IDT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1478A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 19, 2002. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1479A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 7, 2002. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1480A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Planet Earth Communications (PEC) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 24, 2003. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1481A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on February 13, 2003. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1482A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on November 12, 2003. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1483A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on January 29, 2003. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1484A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Verizon to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on July 23, 2003. FSN states that authorization was received and confirmed through an electronic authorization. FSN's auto-verification system, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that FSN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1485A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 15, 2002. We find that Global has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1486A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on September 22, 2003. Upon review of VLD response, we find that VLD has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1487A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on August 16, 2002. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ATS's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1489A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from GTC Telecom to TTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TTI of the complaint and TTI responded on November 30, 2001. TTI states that Complainant's telephone number was purchased from another company and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1490A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 7, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of MCI response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the LOA contained an incorrect
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1491A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 1, 2001. MCI states that complainant's service was switched due to an order received from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC). The Complainant's LEC, however, provided evidence that MCI initiated the switch of Complainant's service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1492A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Based on information provided by MCI and Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that MCI has not violated our carrier change rules Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1505A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1506A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1507A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1508A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 4, 2003. IDT admits that the Complainant's account status failed to change to ``cancelled'' after the long distance service was switched to another carrier and that it mistakenly transferred Complainant's account back to IDT during a migration to a new underlying carrier. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1509A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on November 3, 2003. We find that OTC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-150A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's local service had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 3, 2003. MCI states that during the verification of Complainant's local service, the third party verifier repeated the Complainant's telephone number incorrectly and therefore confirmed the wrong number. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1510A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI National to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on March 31, 2003. We find that PNG has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1511A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on August 19, 2002. We find that RSL has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that RSL's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1512A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on December 22, 2003. We find that CWC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that CWC's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1515A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Based on information obtained from Qwest and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1516A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1517A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1518A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 13, 2003. Talk states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. Talk's LOA, however failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only on telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA preferred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1519A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Ivantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ivantage of the complaint and Ivantage responded on January 24, 2003. We find that Ivantage did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-151A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information obtained by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1520A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on January 8, 2004. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1521A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on November 18, 2002. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RRLD's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1522A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on November 13, 2002. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1523A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on December 8, 2003. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1524A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 4, 2002. IDT submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. IDT's third party verifier, however, incorrectly stated that intraLATA service is in-state long distance. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1525A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATX without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATX of the complaint and ATX responded on July 11, 2003. We find that ATX did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1526A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Optical without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaints and Optical responded. Optical states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Optical's sales representatives, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We recognize that Optical has, in accordance with our rules, filed a certification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1527A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1528A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global Operating Company Corporation to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on April 28, 2004. 011 states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1529A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on April 20, 2004. Business states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Business's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-152A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1530A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to TelecomEZ without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TelecomEZ of the complaint and TelecomEZ responded on May 28, 2003. We find that TelecomEZ did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1531A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 2, 2003. We find that MCI has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1532A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 1, 2003. MCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. MCI was unable, however, to provide any proof of this authorization. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-153A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1545A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on January 16, 2004. Z-Tel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Z-Tel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1546A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on August 1, 2003. We find that Talk America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Talk America's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1547A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel and Verizon to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 29, 2004. ACN has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1548A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CB complaint and CB responded on December 15, 2003 Based on information provided by CB and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that CB has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1549A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Illinois Telephone Corporation to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 28, 2003. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-154A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 13, 2003. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1550A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 18, 2002. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1551A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1557A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on November 10, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1558A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on April 20, 2004. PNG states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was changed when they purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1559A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 31, 2003. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-155A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 19, 2003. MCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. MCI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1560A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on January 16, 2003. We find that SBCLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1561A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on May 5, 2003. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. SBCLD, however, did not submit an audible verification, as required by our rules. We find that SBCLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1562A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on July 30, 2002. RCN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. RCN's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1563A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on October 28, 2002. We find that Startec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1564A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 13, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1565A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on January 9, 2003. International states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1566A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 13, 2003. Qwest states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1567A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Airnex Communications (Airnex) to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on March 17, 2004. OTC did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1568A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 27, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. LCR's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1569A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 13, 2002. Qwest states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-156A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc., (Qwest) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 5, 2003. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1570A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on June 11, 2002. Lightyear has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1571A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LDCB in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1572A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to 011 without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaints and 011 responded. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. 011s's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1573A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OTC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaints and OTC responded. OTC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1574A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to VLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaints and VLD responded. VLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-157A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants authorized the change in services. MCI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-158A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., (BellSouth) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 17, 2003. MCI states due to equipment failure they could not retrieve a third party verification tape. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1591A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-159A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Based on information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that MCI has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-160A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1655A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Isterra to Big Red Wire without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Big Red Wire of the complaint and Big Red Wire responded on June 28, 2002. We find that Big Red Wire did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1656A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed or through third party verifications (TPVs). However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs or a recorded copy of the TPVs. Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1657A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1658A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1659A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. to MCI, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 27, 2003. MCI states that the Complainant authorized the change in service. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-165A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI National, Inc. to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on July 23, 2002. Based on information provided by Talk America and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk America has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1660A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to without Complainants' authorization. pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1661A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants authorized the changes in service. MCI failed to provide third party verification tapes or letters of agency as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1662A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from American Phone Services Corporation (APS) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 13, 2002. MCI states that it accidentally changed Complainant's service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1663A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 7, 2003. MCI states that one of its other customers requested a switch of Complainant's number in error. MCI, however, can not produce any evidence of this addition as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1664A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local, intraLATA, and long distance services had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 30, 2002. MCI states that Complainant's services were changed through third party verification (TPV). MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1665A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's international service had been changed from WorldxChange, Inc., (WorldxChange) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 10, 2003. MCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service via a third party verification. MCI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's international service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1666A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 1, 2003. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1667A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1668A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-166A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 15, 2003. AT&T has submitted an electronic letter of agency as proof of authorization of the switch. However, AT&T has failed to include the electronic signature of the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1672A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 9, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Comcast in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1674A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1675A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1676A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on August 8, 2003. ATC states in its response that due to technical difficulties, it is unable to provide a third party verification recording. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1677A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on December 24, 2002. AT&T Broadband has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T Broadband in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1678A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on June 3, 2003. OTC states in its response that it is unable to provide a third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1679A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on November 20, 2003. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-167A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1680A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-168A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 18, 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party tape as verification for the switch. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the Complainant wanted to switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-169A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has submitted third party verification tapes as proof o f authorizing the switches. However, the verifier has failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service for each number as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-170A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 25, 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party verification tape as proof of authorization for the switch. AT&T states that the verifier did not receive a definite ``yes'' answer to complete the verification process. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1740A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on June 25, 2003. ADST did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1741A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Global Operating Company Corporation to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on March 8, 2004. PowerNet states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. PowerNet's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1742A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on May 11, 2004. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. U.S. Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1743A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1744A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to BRW without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BRW of the complaint and BRW responded on March 8, 2004. Big Red Wire states the Complainant signed up for its service using an internet letter of agency (LOA). Big Red Wire, however, did not provide an internet LOA as proof of verification. We find that BRW has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1745A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaints and Comcast responded. Comcast has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Comcast in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-174A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Broadband /Comcast (AT&T Broadband) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 21, 2003. AT&T states in its response that due to a clerical error the Complainant's number was switched. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-175A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 18, 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party tape as verification for the switch. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the Complainant was authorized to make the switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-176A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 8, 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party tape as verification for the switch. The verifier, however, failed to confirm all numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1772A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1773A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1774A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1775A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 19, 2003. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1776A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification recordings (``TPVs''). The TPVs submitted were in Chinese. AT&T also submitted written transcripts of the TPVs. The written transcripts, however, were not translated by an independent translator and AT&T refused to comply with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1777A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on October 20, 2003. Based on information provided by Vartec and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Vartec has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1778A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on August 19, 2003. OTC states in its response that it obtained Complainant's authorization via a third party verification recording. However, OTC did not submit a verification recording. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1779A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GCT of the complaints and GCT responded. We find that GCT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-177A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1780A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on January 29, 2004. ATC has submitted a written transcript as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. ATC's verifier, however, did not confirm the number to be switched after the sales representative dropped off the line as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1781A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 25, 2003 Based on information provided by AT&T and the local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1782A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Williams Communications, Inc. (Williams) to PromiseVision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PromiseVision of the complaint and PromiseVision responded on December 22, 2003. PromiseVision states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. PromiseVision's verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data, as required by our rules. We find that PromiseVision has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1783A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to BTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BTC of the complaint and BTC responded on December 30, 2003. BTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that BTC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1784A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI Communications, Inc. (MCI) to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on August 18, 2003. SBA states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. SBA's verifier, however, failed to confirm whether the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that SBA has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1785A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Isterra to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on November 8, 2002. SWBLD has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1786A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. ADST's verifiers, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1787A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on December 27, 2002. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1788A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldxChange without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldxChange of the complaint and WorldxChange responded on December 18, 2002. We find that WorldxChange did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on August 26, 2002. We find that Axces did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 5, 2003. MCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. MCI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1790A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 6, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1791A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 20, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1792A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 28, 2002. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1793A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint and NOS responded on May 10, 2002. We find that NOS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1794A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Buyersonline.com without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buyersonline.com of the complaint and Buyersonline.com responded on November 26, 2002. Buyersonline.com did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Buyersonline.com has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Buyersonline.com's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1795A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on July 15, 2002. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1796A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on April 29, 2002. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1797A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 12, 2002. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1798A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 23, 2002. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Talk's LOA, however, does not inform the subscriber that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee would apply to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1799A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on March 12, 2003. McLeod has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-179A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Upon review of MCI's responses, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1800A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OTC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaints and OTC responded. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1801A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 27, 2003. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. LCR's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1802A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on March 12, 2004. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. LDA's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1803A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on November 10, 2003. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. CBS's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that CBS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1804A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to AT-N without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT-N of the complaint and AT-N responded on August 29, 2002. AT-N states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT-N, however, did not submit a functional verification recording, as required by our rules. We find that AT-N has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1805A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on May 29, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1806A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on October 7, 2003. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to receive authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1807A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to NBWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NBWC of the complaint and NBWC responded on November 24, 2003. NBWC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1808A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from their authorized carrier to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 19, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's third party verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-180A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 2, 2003. MCI states that Complainant authorized the change in service. MCI's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1823A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on April 10, 2003. We find that Vartec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1824A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 11, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Comcast in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1825A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast and of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 14, 2003. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1826A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1827A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1829A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 9, 2001. Talk indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk, however, failed to comply with our rules requiring prompt execution, without any reasonable delay of carrier change requests. Here, it took Talk 2.5 months to make the change. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1830A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Promisevision to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 18, 2002. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1831A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 5, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, Sprint was unable to locate a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1832A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1833A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). MCI, however, was unable to retrieve copies of the recorded TPVs. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1834A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 23, 2004. MCI states that it mistakenly switched the Complainant's service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1835A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1836A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1837A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1838A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 7, 2003. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1839A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-183A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on August 6, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OTC's representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-184A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on November 14, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Cox did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1850A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on May 10, 2003. McLeodUSA states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. McLeodUSA's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1851A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 7, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1852A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on November 21, 2002. LDA states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. LDA's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1853A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on May 10, 2001. We find that Business Options has complied with our rules at the time of the carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1854A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on November 21, 2002. APS states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1855A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 24, 2004. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1856A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Options without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaints and Business Options responded. Business Options states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Business Options has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1857A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 22, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1858A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ClearChoice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearChoice of the complaint and ClearChoice responded on June 13, 2003. We find that ClearChoice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1859A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on August 15, 2002. We find that McLeodUSA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-185A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1860A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CoreComm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreComm of the complaint and CoreComm responded on July 9, 2002. We find that CoreComm did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1861A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on July 25, 2002. We find that McLeodUSA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1862A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on September 17, 2002. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1863A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on August 8, 2003. SBCLD has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by the Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1864A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CoreComm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreComm of the complaint and CoreComm responded on July 1, 2003. We find that CoreComm did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1865A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on March 12, 2003. We find that AllTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1866A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IOS of the complaint and IOS responded on March 25, 2003. We find that IOS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1867A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 18, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Mercury without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mercury of the complaint and Mercury responded on October 28, 2003. Mercury states that the disputed charge was for the provision internet services. We find, therefore, that Mercury's actions did not result in an unauthorized change of Complainant's telecommunications service provider, and we deny Complainant's complaint. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1876A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on October 20, 2003. Based on information obtained from McLeodUSA and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that McLeodUSA has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1877A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 1, 2002. IDT submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. IDT's third party verifier, however failed to elicit that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1878A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on December 6, 2002. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1879A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 12, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-187A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SWB to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on March 10, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1880A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest complaint and Qwest responded on November 24, 2003. Based on information provided by Qwest and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1881A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA complaint and McLeodUSA responded on September 19, 2003. Based on information provided by McLeodUSA and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that McLeodUSA has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1882A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to US Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified US Connect complaint and US Connect responded on April 14, 2004. We find that US Connect has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1883A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on May 5, 2003. Business states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Some of Complainant's responses were inaudible on the TPV. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1884A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1885A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1886A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Bullseye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaint and Bullseye responded on November 14, 2003. Bullseye states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Bullseye's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Bullseye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1887A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 8, 2002. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. IDT's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that IDT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1888A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on October 10, 2002. 011 states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1889A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on April 28, 2003. OneLink states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). OneLink's verifier, however, failed to confirm the services to be switched as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on October 22, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm whether the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1890A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on May 7, 2004. Acceris states that it switched Complainant's service when one of its customers completed a letter of agency (LOA). The LOA provided by Acceris's, however, failed to confirm any telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Acceris
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1891A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on May 10, 2004. ATS states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). ATS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1892A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Globalinx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalinx of the complaint and Globalinx responded on February 24, 2004. Globalinx did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Globalinx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globalinx's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1893A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 19, 2002. Excel did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1894A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on July 11, 2003. Business states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Business's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1895A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1896A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on June 23, 2003. TeleUno states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1897A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 30, 2004. Acceris did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Acceris's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1898A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaints and Business responded. Business, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Business's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1899A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Clear Choice to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 6, 2003. Based on information obtained from Talk and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-189A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI states that Complainants service was switched due to technical difficulties that occurred in their system. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1900A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaints and Business responded. We find that Business has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1901A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on December 10, 2002. Business did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Business's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1902A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on June 19, 2003. WCSS states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). WCSS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone to be switched as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1907A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on May 20, 2003. We find that SBCLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1908A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on September 15, 2003. We find that Business did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1909A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on March 19, 2002. Business Options states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Business Options has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-190A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on November 18, 2003. OTC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1910A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 31, 2002. Although Excel provided a transcript of purported third party verification, it failed to provide the independent audio record as required by our rules. Thus, Excel failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of an authorized carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1911A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on July 23, 2002. VLD states that it has provided an audio record of the third party verification. The recording that VLD has provided, however, is not a functional recording. Thus, we are unable to verify for ourselves whether the transcript VLD has provided conforms to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1912A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldxChange without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldxChange of the complaint and WorldxChange responded on February 26, 2003. We find that WorldxChange did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1913A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BCLD of the complaint and BCLD responded on May 5, 2003. We find that BCLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1914A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 20, 2003. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1915A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Broadwing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaints and Broadwing responded. We find that Broadwing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1916A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Americatel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaints and Americatel responded. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1917A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Global without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1918A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1919A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on July 26, 2002. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-191A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Affinity without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Affinity of the complaint and Affinity responded on September 29, 2003. Affinity states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error. We find that Affinity has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Affinity's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1920A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 25, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1922A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 9, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1923A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on January 31, 2003. RCN states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). RCN's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1924A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to CloseCall without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on March 31, 2003. We find that CloseCall did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1925A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on October 11, 2002. Comcast did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Comcast's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Comcast's liability below. Comcast must remove all charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1926A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Communications to ITC^DeltaCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ITC^DeltaCom of the complaint and ITC^DeltaCom responded on December 18, 2003. ITC^DeltaCom has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof the switch. However, the LOA does not contain the Complainant's number as required by our rules. We find that ITC^DeltaCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1927A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on June 20, 2002. We find that RSL did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1928A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on September 26, 2003. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1929A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-192A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI National to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 3, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm whether the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1930A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. We find that WCSS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1931A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to VLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaints and VLD responded. We find that VLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1932A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaints and UBC responded. We find that UBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1935A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to INC 21 without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INC 21 of the complaints and INC 21 responded. INC 21 however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. INC 21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that INC 21's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1936A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on September 2, 2003. APS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that APS's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1937A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on December 17, 2003. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1938A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on October 16, 2003. Covista did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1939A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Buyersonline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buyersonline of the complaint and Buyersonline responded on August 27, 2003. Buyersonline did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Buyersonline has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Buyersonline's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1940A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance had been changed to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on August 6, 2003. Business states that its switching of Complainant's telecommunications service provider was due to a data entry error. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Business's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1941A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on April 11, 2003. Optical states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Optical's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1942A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on January 21, 2003. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1943A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 23, 2002. MCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1947A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 10, 2004. AT&T has submitted a third party verification recording (TPV) as proof of authorization of the switch. The TPV, however, does not contain the content required for a third party verification. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1948A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 3, 2004. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization of the switch. The LOA, however, does not include the Complainant's number. AT&T admits that, due to a clerical error, it mistakenly switched the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1949A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 12, 2003. Excel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification recording (``TPV''). Excel also submitted a written transcript of the TPV. The written transcript, however, was not conducted by an independent third party. Moreover, Excel failed to provide the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 9, 2004. AT&T states in its response that it mistakenly switched Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1951A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 19, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1952A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1953A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on November 11, 2003. Excel states in its response that a third party verification recording (TPV) was used as proof of authorization for the switch. However, Excel has failed to submit a copy of the TPV as required by our rules. We find that Excel has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1954A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1955A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1959A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on June 17, 2003. WCSS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). WCSS's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1960A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on July 11, 2003. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1961A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Amtic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Amtic of the complaint and Amtic responded on November 19, 2003. Amtic did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Amtic has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Amtic's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1962A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on April 21, 2004. New Access did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that New Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1963A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Hargray without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hargray of the complaint and Hargray responded on June 4, 2002. We find that Hargray did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1964A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Globcom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaints and Globcom responded. Globcom however, failed to provide a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1965A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on February 26, 2003. UKI has submitted a third party recording (TPV) as proof of authorization of the switch. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1966A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on September 8, 2003. Optical states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Optical's third party verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Optical has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1967A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Connect America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaint and Connect America responded on January 7, 2004. Connect states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Connect purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1968A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to IP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IP of the complaint and IP responded on June 4, 2003. IP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. IP's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that IP has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1969A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to IDT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaints and IDT responded. IDT, however, failed to provide a third party verification recording or letters of agency as required by our rules. IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1970A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on March 18, 2003. Sage states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched due to an error by a telemarketing firm representing Sage. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sage's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1971A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1972A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 2, 2004. OneLink submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1973A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on March 1, 2004. New Century states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1974A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Express Tel to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on November 3, 2003. Based on information obtained from Broadwing and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Broadwing has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1975A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1977A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency was submitted and processed or through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1979A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec, Inc. to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on June 19, 2003. We find that International did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-197A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1980A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on September 25, 2002. We find that Preferred Billing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1987A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 9, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1988A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on August 15, 2002. We find that Lightyear has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1989A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 1, 2002. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-198A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1990A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buyersonline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buyersonline of the complaint and Buyersonline responded on November 13, 2003. We find that Buyersonline did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1991A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAT of the complaint and USAT responded on February 11, 2003. We find that USAT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1992A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ComTech 21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ComTech 21 of the complaint and ComTech 21 responded on June 25, 2003. We find that ComTech 21 did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1993A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 17, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 28, 2003. Based on information obtained from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-200A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 5, 2003. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-201A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CBS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaints and CBS responded. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-202A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on December 5, 2003. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBA's verifier, however, failed to receive a separate authorization for Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that SBA has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-203A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Universal without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaints and Universal responded. Universal did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Universal's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-204A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from American Phone Services (APS) to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on December 17, 2003. 011 states that Complainant's service was switched due to a technical network transition operation. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that 011's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-205A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on December 23, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received through third party verification. Vox's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2088A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2089A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 7, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-208A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on November 10, 2003. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2090A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Coast International Telecom (CIT) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 11, 2002. MCI states that CIT was responsible for the switch. CIT however, provided clear and convincing evidence that MCI was at fault. Despite numerous requests, MCI has failed to respond to CIT's evidence. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2091A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' services were changed due to an order from Complainants' local exchange carriers. In each case, Complainants' local exchange carriers provided clear and convincing evidence that MCI initiated the switch. MCI was given the opportunity to respond to each local exchange carrier but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2094A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on September 2, 2003. APS submitted a third party recording as proof of authorization of the switch. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2095A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 11, 2003. AT&T has submitted a copy of the promotional check as proof of the authorization of the switch. The LOA, however, was not signed as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2096A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2097A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on February 5, 2004. CBS submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. CBS's verifier, however, did not confirm that the Complainant wanted to make a change in intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that CBS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2098A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on March 27, 2003. FSN has submitted a copy of a transcript used for verification of a switch. The verification, however, does not contain separate authorization for each service as required by our rules. We find that FSN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2099A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on April 7, 2003. We find that Matrix did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-209A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 16, 2003. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2102A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on July 29, 2003. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2103A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that Complainants' telephone numbers were switched due to a clerical error. LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss LCR's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2104A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 26, 2004. Excel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2105A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Momentum without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Momentum of the complaint and Momentum responded on December 15, 2003. Momentum states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Momentum's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Momentum has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2106A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on October 28, 2003. We find that Covista did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2107A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TFN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TFN of the complaint on August 19, 2002. TFN has failed to respond to the complaint. Because TFN has failed to provide a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules, we find that TFN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2108A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 23, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2109A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on January 15, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-210A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 11, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2110A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 26, 2002. IDT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-211A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on December 4, 2003. UKI states Complainant's service was switched due to technical difficulties. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-212A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Granite without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Granite of the complaints and Granite responded. Granite states that Complainants' services were inadvertently converted. Granite has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Granite's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Granite's liability below. Granite has removed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2136A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest complaint and Qwest responded on December 15, 2003. Based on information provided by Qwest and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2137A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to INC21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INC21 of the complaint and INC21 responded on March 17, 2004. INC 21 however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. INC 21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that INC 21's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2138A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on April 7, 2003. We find that Business did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2139A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk complaint and Talk responded on March 9, 2004. Based on information provided by Talk and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Talk has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2140A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec complaint and VarTec responded on December 18, 2002. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Budget without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Budget of the complaint and Budget responded on August 25, 2003. Budget did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Budget has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Budget's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2142A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CloseCall without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on March 18, 2004. CloseCall did not submit a third party verification recording or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that CloseCall has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CloseCall's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on May 28, 2004. Optical did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Optical's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-214A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on May 5, 2003. Vox states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Vox's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2163A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 6, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2164A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ezTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ezTel of the complaint and ezTel responded on May 7, 2003. ezTel states that it acquired the Complainant's account in a bulk transfer of customers from another carrier. ezTel did not, however, obtain a waiver of our authorization requirements, as required for bulk transfers of customers at the time of the carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2165A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Wordnet Communications (Wordnet) to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on November 22, 2002. UKI did not submit a third party verification (TPV) or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2166A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 21, 2004. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2167A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 24, 2003. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2168A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 23, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BCLD of the complaint and BCLD responded on August 9, 2002. We find that BCLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2170A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2171A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ESS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ESS of the complaint and ESS responded on January 7, 2004. We find that ESS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2172A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on July 29, 2003. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2173A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on September 6, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2174A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 7, 2004. CTS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as interLATA or intraLATA toll carrier, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2175A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Ionex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ionex of the complaint and Ionex responded on August 26, 2002. We find that Ionex did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2176A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on April 4, 2003. We find that Business Options did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2177A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on September 4, 2002. We find that McLeod did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CoreComm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreComm of the complaint and CoreComm responded on July 1, 2003. We find that CoreComm did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2179A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 29, 2003. Qwest states that Complainant's toll-free service was properly authorized. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-217A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2180A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 4, 2002. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2181A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on October 29, 2002. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2182A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2183A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on February 11, 2003. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2184A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on March 3, 2003. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Clearworld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2185A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 10, 2002. RCN states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. RCN's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USAN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAN of the complaint and USAN responded on September 9, 2003. USAN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that USAN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that USAN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-218A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2192A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on July 22, 2003. We find that Matrix did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2193A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on July 16, 2003. We find that ALLTEL did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2194A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on May 28, 2003. We find that Vartec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2195A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to eLEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLEC of the complaint and eLEC responded on August 9, 2002. eLEC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that eLEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that eLEC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2196A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on June 17, 2003. U.S. Telecom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2197A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 17, 2003. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2198A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on July 14, 2003. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on November 28, 2003. Comcast states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Comcast has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-219A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 23, 2003. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2200A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TFN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TFN of the complaint and TFN responded on February 11, 2004. TFN indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. TFN's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's local, interLATA, and intraLATA toll carrier, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2201A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on August 2, 2002. We find that Integretel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2202A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 19, 2003. IDT has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2203A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BOptions without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOptions of the complaint and BOptions responded on October 20, 2003. We find that BOptions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2204A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on March 31, 2003. Americatel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Americatel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2205A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 1, 2003. Global has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2206A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Connect America without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaints and Connect America responded. Connect America states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when it purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2207A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to VES without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VES of the complaint and VES responded on May 19, 2003. VES states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. VES's verifier, however, did not confirm numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. VES's verifier stated three numbers but the Complainant did not respond to that information. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2208A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 20, 2002. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2209A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on October 25, 2002. SWBLD did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that SWBLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SWBLD's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-220A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GlobCom Telecom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 23, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2210A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 25, 2003. We find that SBC did not violate our rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2211A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2212A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint on May 10, 2004. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2213A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint on May 10, 2004. OneStar has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of OneStar to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that OneStar's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2216A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2217A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2218A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2219A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2220A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTI of the complaint and PTI responded on October 22, 2003. PTI has failed to provide a third party verification recording or letter of authorization, as required by our rules. We find that PTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PTI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2221A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on June 6, 2003. McLeod admits in its response that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service back to McLeod with out Complainant's authorization. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeod's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2222A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Network Enhanced to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on January 9, 2004. Globcom has failed to submit a third party verification recording or letter of authorization as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2223A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Buyers Online to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 13, 2003. AT&T stated that Complainant's service was switched to AT&T by Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) on May 11, 2002. Complainant's LEC, however, provided evidence that AT&T had initiated the switch on December 27, 2001. In its response to Complainant's LEC, AT&T agreed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2224A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 6, 2003. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2225A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 19, 2003. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2226A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Allegiance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 9, 2002. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2227A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 28, 2003. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2228A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Network Enhanced Technologies to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on January 29, 2004. Globcom did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as proof of the authorized switch as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2229A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ACP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACP of the complaint and ACP responded on November 12, 2003. ACP states in its response that it acquired Complainant's account when it purchased the customer base of another carrier. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2230A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2232A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 21, 2003 Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect telephone number to the third party
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2233A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications Corp. (Qwest) to BOI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOI of the complaint and BOI responded on June 26, 2002. BOI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BOI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2234A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2235A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on March 25, 2002. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). OTC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the change, the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 11, 2002. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency was signed and processed via Sprint website. Sprint's letter of agency, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2237A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 31, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was added to the account of an existing Sprint business customer when that business customer included its telephone number in error on a list of telephone numbers to be included on its account. Sprint, however, failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2238A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 6, 2004. Sprint states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). During the verification process, however, the Complainant explicitly stated that the switch was not to take place until after the paperwork he was to receive was signed and returned by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2239A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Discount Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount Plus of the complaint and Discount Plus responded on June 4, 2004. Discount Plus admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service during a change in wholesale carriers. We find that Discount Plus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Discount Plus's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2240A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on February 28, 2003. We find that ADST did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2241A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on November 5, 2002. We find that Yestel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2242A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 19, 2002. LDC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2243A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint on August 28, 2002. ADST has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ADST to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2244A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 24, 2004. CTS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's local, interLATA, and intraLATA toll carrier for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2245A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on October 4, 2002. Yestel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Yestel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Yestel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2246A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on April 1, 2003. McLeodUSA did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2247A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint on August 28, 2002. ADST has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ADST to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2248A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2003. Primus indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Primus's LOA, however, is not legible. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2249A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from Talk America to USAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAT of the complaint and USAT responded on April 20, 2004. USAT has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-224A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 26, 2003. Verizon did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-225A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Toll Free without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Toll Free of the complaint and Toll Free responded on November 6, 2003. Upon review of Toll Free's response, we find that Toll Free has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-226A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on June 2, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainants local exchange carrier, we find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2270A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on December 29, 2003. We find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2271A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 10, 2004. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2272A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on February 10, 2004. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. Vox's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2273A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 27, 2004. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2274A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on November 25, 2003. Americatel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Americatel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2275A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Oregon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Oregon of the complaint and Oregon responded on November 13, 2003. We find that Oregon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2276A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 5, 2004. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2277A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on January 20, 2004. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. LDA's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2278A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Globcom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaints and Globcom responded. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2279A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on August 28, 2003. We find that McLeodUSA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-227A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 3, 2003. Upon review of Global's response, we find that Global has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2280A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on October 31, 2003. Talk America has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2281A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on March 26, 2004. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2282A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on December 4, 2003. We find that VLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2283A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on November 19, 2003. We find that Comcast did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2284A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on December 9, 2003. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2285A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 20, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2286A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telco without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telco of the complaint and Telco responded on February 10, 2004. We find that Telco did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2287A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 15, 2003. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2288A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NAC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAC of the complaint and NAC responded on December 16, 2003. NAC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NAC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NAC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2289A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on June 30, 2004. Universal did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Universal's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-228A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Allied Communications to Voicenet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Voicenet of the complaint and Voicenet responded on November 14, 2003. Upon review of Voicenet's response, we find that Voicenet has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2290A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 7, 2004. LCR states that Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly entered into its system. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2291A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 18, 2002. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2292A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on February 25, 2004. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Vox's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2293A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on February 10, 2004. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-229A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on December 3, 2003. Optical submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Optical's sales agent, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2303A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on February 16, 2004. LDS states that Complainant's service was changed due to a processing error. We find that LDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2304A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk complaint and Talk responded on May 27, 2003. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2305A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 19, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2306A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 6, 2003. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2307A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on April 6, 2004. U.S. Telecom states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was the result of a data error. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that U.S. Telecom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2308A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 6, 2003. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2309A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on November 12, 2003. ClearWorld states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). ClearWorld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2310A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex complaint and Opex responded on May 25, 2004. We find that Opex has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2311A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on April 19, 2004. Vox states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Vox, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2312A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 30, 2003. Excel has submitted a third party verification recording (TPV) as proof of authorization of the switch. The TPV, however, does not contain the content required for a third party verification. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2313A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 5, 2004. NCT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NCT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2314A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from EDS Telecom to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on December 11, 2003. International states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2315A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on April 19, 2004. We find that Network did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2318A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex complaint and Opex responded on July 10, 2003. We find that Opex has not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2319A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 10, 2003. Verizon has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2320A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on November 18, 2002. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2321A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Discount without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount of the complaint and Discount responded on August 21, 2003. Discount has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2322A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on February 16, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2323A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint and Frontier responded on July 18, 2003. Frontier states that when Complainant authorized the switch to Electric Lightwave (a Frontier affiliate), an Electric Lightwave representative mistakenly switched the Complainant's service to Global Crossing. Electric did not, however, provide any proof of authorization to switch Complainant's service either to itself
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2324A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on May 20, 2003. Clear World states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clear World's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clear World has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2325A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to EconoDial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified EconoDial of the complaint and EconoDial responded on April 3, 2003. EconoDial has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2326A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 17, 2002. Cavalier states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Cavalier's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2327A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 20, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2328A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2329A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ZoneLD.Com to eMeritus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eMeritus of the complaint and eMeritus responded on April 24, 2003. We find that eMeritus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2350A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on February 26, 2003. Integretel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Integretel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2351A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USLD of the complaint and USLD responded on October 3, 2003. We find that USLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2352A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to Connect America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaint and Connect America responded on January 5, 2004. Connect America states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when it purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2353A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on September 6, 2002. UKI states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2354A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on February 28, 2003. We find that SWBLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2355A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ComTech 21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ComTech 21 of the complaint and ComTech 21 responded on July 20, 2004. ComTech 21 did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ComTech 21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2356A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on April 5, 2004. Primus admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service back to Primus after the Complainant switched to another carrier. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2357A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SWBLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWBLD of the complaint and SWBLD responded on February 4, 2003. SWBLD has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2360A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2361A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 7, 2003. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency was signed and processed via Sprint website. Sprint's letter of agency, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services it did not want to switch in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2362A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2363A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 25, 2003. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2364A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2365A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldxchange to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 19, 2001. MCI states that Complainant's wife authorized the change in service through third party verification. MCI however, failed to provide an independent English translation of its third party verification tape, despite several requests from the Commission. We find that MCI has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2366A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 17, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2367A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from MCI, Inc., (MCI) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 28, 2003. MCI states that another customer inadvertently gave Complainant's number to be switched. MCI, however, was unable to provide a letter of agency or a third party verification tape completed by the other customer. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2368A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2369A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 25, 2003. MCI has stated in its response that the Complainant declined to provide appropriate verification data, such as her social security number or date-of-birth as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2370A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 8, 2003. We find that Comcast did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2371A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ZoneLD.Com to eMeritus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eMeritus of the complaint and eMeritus responded on April 24, 2003. We find that eMeritus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2372A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on October 20, 2003. Opex has not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as proof of the authorized switch as required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2373A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ClearWorld without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaints and ClearWorld responded. ClearWorld indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ClearWorld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. ClearWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2374A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaint and America responded on September 17, 2003. America has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2375A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 30, 2003. Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2376A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 24, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2377A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on October 11, 2002. We find that AT&T Broadband did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2378A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel complaint and Integretel responded on February 4, 2003. We find that Integretel has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2379A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex complaint and Opex responded on May 25, 2004. We find that Opex has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2380A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 16, 2003. TeleUno submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2381A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on February 4, 2003. AllTel has not submitted a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as proof of the authorized switch as required by our rules. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2382A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from American Tel Corporation to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on August 4, 2003. Clear World states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clear World's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Clear World has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2383A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on June 22, 2002. LDA submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. LDA's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the Complainant want to switch. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2384A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel complaint and Integretel responded on February 4, 2003. We find that Integretel has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2385A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Corporation (Qwest) to ezTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ezTel of the complaint and ezTel responded on April 12, 2004. ezTel states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). ezTel's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ezTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2386A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on June 24, 2003. Opex states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Opex's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2390A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 26, 2004. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2397A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from United Systems Access, Inc. to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2398A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecom to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 30, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2399A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2400A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from United Carrier Networks (UCN) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 28, 2003. We find that AT&T Corporation has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2401A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on May16, 2003. We find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by the Complainant. Therefore, we find that VLD's action did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2402A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Centurytel to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on October 10, 2003. We find that PNG did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2403A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on April 21, 2003. Ameritech has failed to provide a third party verification recording or letter of authorization, as required by our rules. We find that Ameritech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Ameritech's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2404A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to CAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CAI of the complaint and CAI responded on December 30, 2003. CAI states in its response that it acquired Complainant's account when it purchased the customer base of another carrier. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2405A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to One Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Link of the complaint and One Link responded on May 6, 2003. One Link has submitted a third party recording as proof of the authorization of the switch. The verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that One Link has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2406A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Qwest has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2407A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Inetba without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inetba of the complaint and Inetba responded on June 5, 2002. Inetba has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2408A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 13, 2002. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2409A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and Telecom USA responded on November 24, 2003. We find that Telecom USA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2410A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on August 28, 2003. McLeodUSA admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant back to its service. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2411A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on April 10, 2003. WCSS states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. WCSS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2412A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on May 24, 2002. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. RRLD's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2413A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 20, 2004. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2414A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 17, 2002. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. SBC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2415A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on February 17, 2004. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Vox's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2416A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 2, 2004. We find that LCR did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2417A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Business Options without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaints and Business Options responded. Business Options states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Business Options has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2418A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 21, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2419A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on March 24, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2420A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on April 4, 2003. We find that Broadwing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2422A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on August 16, 2002. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2423A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2424A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2425A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 21, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2426A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on January 13, 2003. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2427A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Touch of the complaint and Touch responded on November 14, 2002. We find that Touch did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2428A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on January 27, 2003. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2430A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 26, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2431A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Isterra to Somerset without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Somerset of the complaint and Somerset responded on January 30, 2003. We find that Somerset did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2432A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2001, alleging that Complainant's local and long distance service providers have been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 8, 2001. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2433A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-246A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that Complainants authorized the change in their services through third party verification. WorldCom's third party verifiers, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2476A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2510A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 25, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2511A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2555A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2556A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2557A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded on September 25, 2002. QuantumLink has submitted two Letter of Agencies (LOAs) as proof of the authorization of the switch. The LOAs, however, do not contain the subscriber's address and each telephone number to be covered by the preferred carrier change order as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2558A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 18, 2002. Based on information provided by Qwest and by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2559A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August1 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on July 21, 2004. Universal admits that there was a discrepancy in its marketing and verification of the switch was inconsistent with established practices. We find that Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2560A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to SWB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SWB of the complaint and SWB responded on May 5, 2003. SWB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification recording (``TPV''). The verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that SWB has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2561A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on March 14, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2562A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2563A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 19, 2002. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunication service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2564A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 9, 2003. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunication service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2565A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Flat Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Flat Rate of the complaint and Flat Rate April 23, 2001. We find that Flat Rate was in compliance with our rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, Flat Rate's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2566A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications (ACN) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 19, 2004. Comcast states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Comcast's verifier, however, failed to orally confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2567A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 30, 2002. RCN states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. RCN's sale's representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2568A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 10, 2002. RCN states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. RCN's sale's representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2570A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 11, 2002. RCN states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. RCN's sale's representative, however, failed to drop off the line the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that RCN has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2571A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint. We find that Network did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2572A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on July 29, 2004. We find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2573A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on July 19, 2004. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's sale's representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2574A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on July 19, 2004. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's sale's representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2575A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 20, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2576A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on March 6, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2577A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 4, 2004. CTS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one telecommunications carrier can be designated local, interLATA and intraLATA toll carrier, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2578A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to GTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTI of the complaint and GTI responded on July 21, 2004. GTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. However, GTI failed to submit a letter of agency or third party verification recording. We find that GTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2579A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on July 21, 2004. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Broadview's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2580A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSP of the complaint and BSP responded on April 24, 2003. We find that BSP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2581A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on July 27, 2004. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2582A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 29, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2583A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WALD of the complaint and WALD responded on July 22, 2004. WALD states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. WALD's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that WALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2584A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on August 5, 2004. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2585A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on August 2, 2004. Axces has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2587A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 3, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2588A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on August 6, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2589A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on October 22, 2002. OTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OTC's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2616A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on July 2, 2003. WCSS's response indicated that the phone number provided in the notification was incorrect. We sent the correct phone number to WCSS and requested a response and any associated letter of agency or third party verifications pertaining to the correct phone number. WCSS,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2617A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on April 1, 2004. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2618A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 5, 2003. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2619A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Choicetel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Choicetel of the complaint and Choicetel responded on July 28, 2004. Choicetel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2620A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Ameritech to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on May 1, 2003. McLeodUSA did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2621A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 30, 2004. UKI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2622A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on April 6, 2004. Cavalier has submitted a third party recording as proof of authorization of the switch. The verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched and failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2623A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on July 22, 2004. LDS admits it either changed services due to an inadvertent processing error or one of its other customers mistakenly provided complainant's number. However, LDS did not provide the TPV for the other customer. We find that LDS has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2624A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Citizens without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Citizens of the complaint and Citizens responded on April 13, 2004. We find that Citizens did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2625A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 3, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2626A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on April 21, 2004. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2627A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T Broadband without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Broadband of the complaint and AT&T Broadband responded on February 21, 2003. We find that AT&T Broadband did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2628A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Comcast without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaints and Comcast responded. Comcast states in its response that it acquired Complainants' accounts due to an internal billing conversion. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2629A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Miko without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Miko of the complaints. Miko has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Miko to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Miko's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2630A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on January 15, 2003. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2631A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on April 21, 2003. OneStar has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization for the switch which occurred December 5, 2002 as, required by our rules. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2632A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Lifeline Communications (Lifeline) to PTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTI of the complaint and PTI responded on March 11, 2003. PTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PTI's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that PTI's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2633A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex Communications to Globalinx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalinx of the complaint and Globalinx responded on October 22, 2003. Globalinx has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization of the switch as required by our rules. We find that Globalinx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2634A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on June 27, 2002. We find that Lightyear did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2635A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 28, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2636A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on July 30, 2004. Network has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Network in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2637A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on April 10, 2003. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2638A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaints and Axces responded. We find that Axces did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2639A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RSL COM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL COM of the complaint and RSL COM responded on May 22, 2002. We find that RSL COM was in compliance with our carrier change rules at the time of the switch. Therefore, RSL COM's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2640A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on July 8, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2641A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to INETBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INETBA of the complaint and INETBA responded on July 7, 2003. We find that INETBA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2642A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 6, 2003. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2643A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2644A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on June 12, 2003. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2645A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on August 5, 2004. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2646A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to CBP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBP of the complaint and CBP responded on October 10, 2002. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that CBP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2647A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Conversent without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Conversent of the complaint and Conversent responded on October 17, 2002. We find that Conversent did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2648A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on October 3, 2003. We find that Matrix did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2649A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on May 10, 2004. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Advantage's sales representative, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2650A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on July 29, 2004. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Clearworld's verifier, however, did not confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2651A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Eschelon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Eschelon of the complaint and Eschelon responded on July 22, 2004. We find that Eschelon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2652A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on July 21, 2004. Yestel admits that it switched customer back to its service without verification and authorization. We find that Yestel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Yestel's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2653A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on May 27, 2003. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2654A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint on May 5, 2004. Vox has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Vox to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Vox's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2656A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS Telecom (TDS) and MCI, Inc. (MCI) to PowerCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerCom of the complaint and PowerCom responded on March 26, 2002. PowerCom states that the account inadvertently moved back to PowerCom as a result of PowerCom's changing its underlying network carrier. Therefore, we find that PowerCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss PowerCom's liability below.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2657A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on June 5, 2003. IDT states that the account was established due to a data entry error. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2658A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox) to CCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCC of the complaint and CCC responded on March 18, 2003. We find that CCC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2659A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox) to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 4, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2660A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2661A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2662A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded. MCI has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2663A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 27, 2002. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2664A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 7 2002. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification TPV). MCI's verifier however failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2665A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2666A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 3 2001. MCI states that the account was inadvertently changed as a result of a data entry error. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss MCI's liability below. MCI must remove all charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2688A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from One Star to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 23, 2002. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2693A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest complaint and Qwest responded on May 16, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2694A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 21, 2003. VarTec states that Complainant authorized a switch for local service, but an internal VarTec processing error resulted in a switch of Complainant's long distance service. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2695A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC) to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on July 21, 2004. Universal did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Universal's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2696A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on October 15, 2002. McLeodUSA has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2697A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest complaint and Qwest responded on July 9, 2002. We find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2698A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on June 5, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2699A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on January 27, 2003. We find that McLeod did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2700A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on November 21, 2002. UKI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2701A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on November 18, 2002. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2702A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to U.S. Bell without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Bell of the complaint and U.S. Bell responded on November 20, 2003. U.S. Bell states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. U.S. Bell's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2703A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI responded. UKI indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. UKI's verifiers, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2707A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on August 8, 2002. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2708A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2709A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 24, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2710A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on August 11, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2711A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 6, 2003. Primus did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2712A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on September 22, 2003. SBC did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2713A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 20, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2714A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossings to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on August 6, 2003. Optical submitted a third party recording as proof of authorization of the switch. Optical's verifier, however, failed to confirm the numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2715A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 6, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2716A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on April 8, 2002. RCN states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). In addition, RCN did not provide a TPV, but only a transcript. RCN's verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2717A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2003 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on August 25, 2003. We find that McLeod did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2718A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Net895 to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on February 9, 2004. Globcom did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2719A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on February 12, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2720A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 20, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2723A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 13, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2724A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on December 3, 2003. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2725A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 24, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2726A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on May 2, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2727A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on August 19, 2003. International states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2728A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LifeLine without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LifeLine of the complaint and LifeLine responded on August 2, 2004. LifeLine admits that Complainant only authorized their interLATA service to be switched, but LifeLine switched interLATA and intraLATA toll service. We find that LifeLine has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change of intraLATA toll service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2729A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on August 10, 2004. McLeodUSA states Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error by McLeodUSA. We find that McLeodUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that McLeodUSA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2730A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2731A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Universal without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaints and Universal responded. Universal did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Universal's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2732A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 23, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2733A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on August 20, 2003. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2734A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on January 29, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2735A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on July 23, 2004. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2736A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on August 5, 2004. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2737A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 17, 2004. CTS indicates that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2738A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 7, 2003. SBC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2739A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on August 11, 2004. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2740A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BOptions without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOptions of the complaint and BOptions responded on July 28, 2004. BOptions states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that BOptions has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2741A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on August 11, 2004. We find that NET did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2742A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTI of the complaint and PTI responded on August 3, 2004. PTI states in its response that a third party verification recording (TPV) was used as proof of authorization for the switch. PTI's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2743A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2744A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 9, 2002. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a third party verification with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2745A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2746A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on August 10, 2004. Talk America has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Talk America in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2752A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI/WorldCom to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on August 19, 2004. PowerNet states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. PowerNet's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2753A1.txt
  • service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to their authorized carrier at the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed by Complainant against WCSS IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1170(d), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither the authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2754A1.txt
  • service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to their authorized carrier at the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed by Complainant against UKI IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1170(d), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither the authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2755A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Qwest to American without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified American of the complaint and American responded on October 23, 2003. We find that American has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2757A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 5, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2758A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 4, 2002. ACN indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. ACN's LOA, however, failed to confirm all the telephone number(s) to be covered by the switch, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2759A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global TelData without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global TelData of the complaint and Global TelData responded on August 3, 2004. Global TelData states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. We find that Global TelData has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2760A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Connect America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect America of the complaint and Connect America responded on August 12, 2004. We find that Connect America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 12, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2762A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 12, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2763A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on November 18, 2003. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2764A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 9, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2765A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Ameritech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on May 22, 2002. We find that Ameritech did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2766A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Lightyear Network Solutions (Lightyear) to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on March 14, 2002. PNG states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PNG's verifier however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that PNG's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2767A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Epicus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Epicus of the complaint and Epicus responded on July 22, 2002. We find that Epicus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2768A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc (MCI) to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on August 9, 2002. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2769A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2770A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Pioneer Telephone (Pioneer) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 23, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2771A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 14, 2003. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Sprint's receipt of an LOA with an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2772A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 22, 2002. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's verifier however, failed to obtain any personally identifiable information such as date of birth or social security number as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2773A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2774A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2775A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Long Distance (SBC) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 25, 2003. MCI states that another customer provided Complainant's phone number. MCI however has failed to produce a valid third party verification tape or letter of agency for that other customer as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2776A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 16, 2003. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2777A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2778A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2779A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2780A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2781A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on April 21, 2004. Horizon has submitted a third party verification as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. Horizon's verifier, however, did not confirm all the numbers to be switched. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2782A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 23, 2004. Global did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2783A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from XO to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 28, 2003. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2784A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded. CTS states that authorizations were confirmed by a letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainants. CTS' LOA, in each case, however, fails to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated for each service as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on June 5, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2786A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Touch American to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint and Accxx responded on August 17, 2004. Accxx did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Accxx's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2787A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 15, 2003. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2788A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 15, 2003. CTS indicate that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understands that only one carrier may be designated for each service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 9, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2790A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on November 17, 2003. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. America Net, however, failed to provide a functional third party verification. We find that America Net has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2791A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on January 7, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2792A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to KISS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified KISS of the complaint and KISS responded on August 26, 2003. KISS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that KISS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that KISS's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2795A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on June 13, 2003. Comcast states that Complainant requested to be switched away from its service, but due to an error by Comcast, Comcast continued to provide service to Complainant. We find that Comcast did not execute Complainant's service to the submitting carrier within a reasonable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2796A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on September 16, 2002. Broadwing has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2797A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 23, 2003. Qwest states that it was ordered to take over Complainant's service when the CLEC went out of business. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2798A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 28, 2004. LCR states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2799A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 3, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2800A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. We find that Global's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2801A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2802A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 25, 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party verification recording (TPV) as proof of authorization of the switch. The verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch of IntraLATA service. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2803A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to PTG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTG of the complaint and PTG responded on August 6, 2004. PTG has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by PTG in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2804A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2002, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 1, 2002. AT&T responded stating that the Complainant initiated the switch through its local exchange carrier (LEC) without the knowledge or participation of AT&T. Complainant's LEC, however, provided proof showing that AT&T requested this change. AT&T later submitted an additional response saying the customer's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on July 14, 2003. We find that ADST did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2806A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2807A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 23, 2004. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave the incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2808A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2809A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 25, 2003. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2810A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2811A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 16, 2002. AT&T states that it switched the Complainant service twice, but only has a third party verification for the first switch. AT&T has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized the second carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2812A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 15, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2813A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on November 18, 2002. Cox states that a CARE record was received from MCI in March 2002. Complainant's service , however, was not switched until May 2002. We find that Cox's actions resulted in an unreasonable delay in the switch of Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2814A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 18, 2003. Primus states that the authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV) for another customer. Primus, however was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that Primus's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2815A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on March 25, 2004. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2816A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 30, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2817A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communication, Inc. (Qwest) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 20, 2001. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2818A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 25, 2002. MCI's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, confirmed an ``instate'' service switch, and not an intraLATA switch, the switch that the carrier ultimately made. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2819A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2820A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainant's names and telephone numbers were included on a list of Touch 1 Long Distance, Inc. (Tough1) customers in connection with the transfer of Touch 1 customers to MCI pursuant to a corporate restructuring and the Commission granted MCI's request for waiver of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2821A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on August 3, 2004. Matrix states that it acquired after Complainant's authorized carrier went out of business. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2822A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on October 10, 2003. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2823A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint. NOS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NOS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NOS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2826A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Inetba without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inetba of the complaint and Inetba responded on January 9, 2003. We find that Inetba did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2827A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Telecom (Birch) to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on April 15, 2002. We find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2829A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalcom of the complaint however, failed to respond We find that Globalcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globalcom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Globalcom's liability below. Globalcom must remove all charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2830A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to UCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCN of the complaint and UCN responded on September 17, 2003. UCN states that, per its acquisition of Touch America, UCN filed notice with the Commission under the streamlined transfer procedures. However, UNC's filing as well as its Customer notice were not filed with the Commission, or sent to the consumer, 30 days
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2831A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Touch of the complaint. However, Touch did not sent its response within 30 days response time as required by our rules. Touch did not file respond in a timely manner. We find that Touch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Touch's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2833A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on October 16, 2003. RCN admits it cannot produce a complete authorization for switching the Complainant's service. We find that RCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that RCN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2834A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Miko without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Miko of the complaint and Miko responded on December 4, 2003. Miko states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Miko's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Miko has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2835A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 24, 2003. UKI states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. UKI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2836A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on March 18, 2003. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2848A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that it switched Complainants' service because of clerical errors. LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss LCR's liability below.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2849A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on August 5, 2004. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2850A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 31, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2915A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on April 17, 2001. Yestel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Yestel, however, failed to provide a copy of the TPV. We find that Yestel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Yestel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2916A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 1, 2004. MCI states that the account was established due to a data entry error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2917A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed due to Sprint errors. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2918A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldXChange to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 23, 2004. Sprint states that during the third party verification process, the Complainant decline to authorize the switch but that the switch, nonetheless, was processed. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2919A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed by letters of agency (LOA's). However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOA's. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2920A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV's). However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the recorded TPV's. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2921A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 17, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2922A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldXChange to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 11, 2003. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2924A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Telecom to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on April 10, 2003. OneLink states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2925A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech, Worlxchange to WCSS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaint and WCSS responded on September 17, 2003. WCSS submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. WCSS's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WCSS has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2926A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on October 10, 2003. We find that Opex did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2927A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to UKI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we we notified UKI of the complaints and UKI did not file respond. We find that UKI has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that UKI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss UKI's liability below. UKI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2928A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on August 19, 2003. Optical states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Optical's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2929A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on August 31, 2004. We find that LCR did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2930A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on July 14, 2003. Optical states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Optical's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Optical has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2931A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 25, 2003. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2932A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 11, 2002. We find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2935A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2936A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May , 2003. AT&T has submitted a third party recording as proof of the authorization of the switch. The verifier, however, failed to obtain an authorization to switch Complainant's interLATA service as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2937A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Telephone Express without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telephone Express of the complaint and Telephone Express responded on November 6, 2003. We find that Telephone Express did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2938A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2939A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Dancris Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 9, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2940A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on September 12, 2003. OTC submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. OTC's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2941A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on January 13, 2004. Matrix has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2942A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 9, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2943A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on September 8, 2004. ATC submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. ATC's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that ATC has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2944A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 25, 2003. MCI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2945A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2946A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 25, 2003. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2947A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' services were changed due to an order from Complainants' local exchange carrier. In each case, Complainant's local exchange carrier provided evidence that MCI initiated the switch. MCI was given the opportunity to respond to each local exchange carrier but has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2949A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on August 12, 2004. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2950A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 19, 2001. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2952A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to UKI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UKI of the complaint and UKI responded on January 24, 2003. UKI states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. UKI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold switched as required by our rules. We find that UKI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2955A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Network without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaints and Network responded. Network states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when they purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2956A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Buyersonline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buyersonline of the complaint. Buyersonline, however, has failed to to respond in a timely manner as required by our rules. We find that Buyersonline has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Buyersonline's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2961A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NAC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NAC of the complaint and NAC responded on September 2, 2004. NAC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2970A1.txt
  • listed in the July Notice for which no additional information was received by the August 16, 2004 deadline are hereby dismissed. A list of the complaints dismissed herein is attached at Appendix A. ORDERING CLAUSE Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, and 64.1100-64.1195 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, 64.1100-64.1195, the complaints listed in Appendix A are DISMISSED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief Consumer Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Appendix A Informal Complaint Numbers: 01-S52091 01-S58318 01-S60205 01-S61086 02-S67160 02-S67654 02-S68023 02-S68491 02-S71109 02-S73099 02-S73337 02-S73363 02-S73376 02-S73467 02-S77181 02-S77441 02-S79379 02-S81568
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-2980A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Vox Populi without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox Populi of the complaint. Vox Populi has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Vox Populi to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Vox Populi's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3000A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3001A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3002A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3003A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Sprint's verifier, however failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3034A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3034A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3034A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3035A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3035A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3035A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3036A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3036A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3036A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3068A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on March 22, 2004. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3069A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on February 25, 2004. BellSouth states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BellSouth's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization.for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that BellSouth has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3070A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on April 16, 2004. BellSouth states that Complainant's telephone number was included in the list of numbers belonging to a business customer on its order requesting a change its long distance. BellSouth, however, did not provide a valid letter of agency for that business customer. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3071A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on March 30, 2004. PowerNet states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PowerNet's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3072A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Comtech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtech of the complaint and Comtech responded on March 28, 2004. Comtech states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Comtech purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3073A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on June 30, 2004. NCT states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when NCT purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3074A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and Telecom USA responded on March 22, 2004. Telecom USA submitted a third party verification as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. We find that Telecom USA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3075A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to UCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCN of the complaint and UCN responded on May 5, 2004. UCN did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that UCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UCN's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3076A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on April 19, 2004. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3077A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from EzTel Communications to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on March 18, 2004. WilTel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3078A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on June 9, 2004. IDT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3079A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to INC21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INC21 of the complaint and INC21 responded on July 2, 2004. INC21 did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that INC21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that INC21's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3080A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon, World-Link Solutions to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on March 15, 2004. International states authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3081A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 17, 2004. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3082A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on June 11, 2004. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3083A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on March 1, 2004. ClearWorld states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ClearWorld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3085A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Inc21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inc21 of the complaint and Inc21 responded on July 20, 2004. Inc21 did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Inc21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Inc21's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3089A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 27, 2004. AT&T states that it switched Complainant's service in December of 2003. AT&T submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. The LOA, however, is for a switch which occurred in April of 2001 with a former subscriber.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3090A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3091A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3092A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3093A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3094A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3095A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to TeleUno without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno has submitted third party verification recordings (TPV) as proof of authorization for the switch in each Complainants service. The verifier, on the TPV's has failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3097A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on March 30, 2004. APS states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3098A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on April 21, 2004. OneStar`s response it admits that Complainant's telephone service was inadvertently ``slammed'' during routine changes to its underlying provider network. We find that OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneStar's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3099A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on August 18, 2004. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3100A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Airnex Communications, Inc. (AIRNEX ) to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on July 1, 2004. APS states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. APS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3101A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 15, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3102A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 3, 2004. LCR states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's telephone service due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the LCR's actions resulted in authorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3103A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to National Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Access of the complaint and National Access responded on February 20, 2004. Upon review of National Access response, we find that National Access has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3104A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on February 26, 2004. SBC states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and to obtain personally identifiable verification data as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3109A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3110A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 31, 2003. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunication service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3111A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3112A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 9, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA toll service. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3113A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3114A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 16, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifie, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3115A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 2, 2004. MCI states that Complainant's account was established following the receipt of a letter of agency (LOA). MCI's LOA, however, is not signed as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3116A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 17, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's account was established based on information forwarded by Sprint PCS. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of the signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3117A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 5, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3118A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3119A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Citizens Communications Company (Citizens) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 16, 2004. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3120A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 13, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was submitted and processed. Sprint's LOA however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3121A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3122A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 2, 2004. MCI states that Complainant's service was inadvertently changed as a result of a data entry error. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss MCI's liability below. MCI must remove all charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3123A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3124A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 25, 2003. MCI states that due to a system malfunction, it is unable to retrieve a copy of the third party verification required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3125A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec Telecom, Inc. (VarTec) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 13, 2004. Sprint states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for IntraLata service as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3126A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 14, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3128A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3130A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 9, 2003. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3131A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 22, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3132A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to IQ Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IQ Telecom of the complaint and IQ Telecom responded on April 20, 2004. IQ Telecom indicates that authorization was received by a Letter of Agency (LOA). The LOA, however, is not dated as required by our rules. We find that IQ Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3133A1.txt
  • warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IT&E Overseas (IT&E) to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. We served Qwest and Qwest responded. In its response, reference is made to the local exchange carrier for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon states that the order for Complainant's service was incorrectly processed by Verizon. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant's authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3134A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on February 25, 2004. Sage states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the Sage's actions resulted in authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3135A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 12, 2004. LCR's states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3138A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3139A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 3, 2004. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3140A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on August 16, 2004. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3141A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on January 28, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3142A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on April 5, 2004. We find that Excel produced clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3143A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaints and New Rochelle responded. New Rochelle states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that New Rochelle has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that New Rochelle's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3144A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Bullseye without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaints and Bullseye responded. Bullseye indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Bullseye's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. Bullseye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3145A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to TeleUno without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3146A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 30, 2003. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3147A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on August 5, 2003. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. U.S. Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for Complainant's intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3281A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 22, 2004. LCR states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the LCR's actions resulted in authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3282A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 13, 2004. LCR's states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3283A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTE to National Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Access of the complaint and National Access responded on February 20, 2004. National Access states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that National Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that National Access's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3284A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CogniPhone to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on February 4, 2004. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3285A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from American Long Lines Network (American Long Lines) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 20, 2004. LCR states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3287A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Net895 to Budget Call Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Budget Call Long Distance of the complaint and Budget Call Long Distance responded on May 20, 2004. We find that Budget Call Long Distance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3288A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Inc21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inc21 of the complaint and Inc21 responded on July 20, 2004. Inc21 did not submit a third party verification (TPV) or LOA. We find that Inc21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Inc21's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3289A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3289A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3289A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon & ATT to WALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WALD of the complaint and WALD responded on February 9, 2004. WALD states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. WALD's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber may have one carrier for each service as required by our rules. We find that WALD
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3290A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on March 23, 2004. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3291A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3291A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3291A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 1, 2004. Qwest states that Complainant's telephone number was entered incorrectly into Qwest's database. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3292A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on November 12, 2003. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization separated authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3293A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on April 5, 2004. Clear Choice did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Clear Choice has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3294A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaints and ClearWorld responded. ClearWorld states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that ClearWorld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that ClearWorld's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3295A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to 011 without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaints and 011 responded. 011 indicate that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. 011 have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3296A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3297A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to INC 21 without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INC 21 of the complaints and INC 21 responded. INC 21 however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. INC 21 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that INC 21's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3298A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3299A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3300A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on April 8, 2004. 011 did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that 011's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3307A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3308A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 2, 2004. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3309A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Opex Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 25, 2004. AT&T states in its response that it obtained authorization for the switch through an electronic letter of agency (ELOA) as required by our rules. AT&T further states that a copy of the ELOA is not available at this time. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3310A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 22, 2004. NCT has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization for the switch which occurred August 19, 2003, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3311A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 16, 2004. AT&T admits that the Complainant's number was switched when the number on the letter of agency (LOA) was used instead of the number written in by the former subscriber on the LOA. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3312A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3313A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3314A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3315A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states they are unable to provide copies of the signed LOA's for each Complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3340A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3341A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to New Rochelle without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaints and New Rochelle responded. New Rochelle indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Rochelle's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for Complainants' local and local toll service as required by our rules. New Rochelle has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3342A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3361A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 20, 2004. SBC states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). SBC's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for local toll as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3362A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Tel West without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tel West of the complaint and Tel West responded on June 24, 2004. Tel West states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Tel West's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Tel West has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3363A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Long Distance (Southwestern Bell) to Aire Spring without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Aire Spring of the complaint and Aire Spring responded on March 8, 2004. Aire Spring states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Aire Spring's LOA however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Aire
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3364A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nationwide without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint and Nationwide responded on September 20, 2004. We find that Nationwide did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3365A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Main without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main of the complaint and Main responded on June 10, 2004. Main did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Main has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Main's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3366A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on June 16, 2004. NCT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3367A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on June 7, 2004. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3368A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to TNCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TNCI of the complaint and TNCI responded on June 3, 2004. TNCI did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that TNCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TNCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3369A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to LecStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LecStar of the complaint and LecStar responded on May 13, 2004. LecStar did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that LecStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LecStar's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3370A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on March 17, 2004. Excel did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3371A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on March 15, 2004. Pioneer states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. Pioneer's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA preferred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3372A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on June 8, 2004. Americatel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3373A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on June 22, 2004. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. U.S. Telecom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3374A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OPTICOM of the complaints and OPTICOM responded. We find that OPTICOM's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3376A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on March 2, 2004. LDCB states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3377A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3378A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 23, 2004. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3379A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3380A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 6, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3381A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2004. Sprint states that the account was established based on information received from Sprint PCS. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency or third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3382A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3383A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3384A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3385A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3386A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 29, 2004. Sprint states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. During the verification process, however, the Complainant explicitly stated that the switch was not to take place. However, Sprint states that a change order was inadvertently processed nonetheless. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3387A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 1, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3390A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3391A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3392A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting on AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond AT&T's control.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3393A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through letters of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3395A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through electronic letters of agency (LOAs). Excel's electronic authorizations, however, did not contain electronic signatures as required by our rules. Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3396A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3399A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 19, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier however, failed to obtain an authorization for local service. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's local service provider and we discuss Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 5, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier however, failed to obtain an authorization for long distance service. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long distance service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3401A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 12, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3402A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3403A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3404A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3405A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3406A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3407A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3410A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BellSouth) to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on March 17, 2004. Lightyear submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of Complainant's service. Lightyear's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3411A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 12, 2004. OneLink submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. OneLink's verifier, however, did not obtain separate authorization for each service sold, failed to confirm the number to be switched, and failed to obtain personally identifiable
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3412A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to National Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Access of the complaint and National Access responded on April 13, 2004. National Access states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that National Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the National
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3413A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneStar without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaints and OneStar responded. OneStar has failed to provide letters of agency or third party verifications as proof of the authorization for the switches as required by our rules. OneStar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneStar's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3414A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 23, 2004. CTS indicates that authorization was received by a Letter of Agency (LOA). The LOA, however, is not dated as required by our rules. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3415A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldxChange Corporation d/b/a Acceris Communications (WorldxChange) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 30, 2004. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3416A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 25, 2004. LCR states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error by LCR's sales representative. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the LCR's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3422A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 20, 2004. MCI states that the account was established when Complainant electronically signed a letter of agency (LOA) via the Internet. MCI's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber designates MCI to act as the subscriber's agent for the carrier change, that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3423A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3424A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 4, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3425A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3426A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3427A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Buyersonline.com to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 26, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3428A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 9, 2004. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3429A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Acceris Communication (Acceris) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 12, 2004. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3430A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on June 30, 2004. Primus has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as reguired by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3431A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets Long Distance (Working Assets) to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on April 5, 2004. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3432A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on April 7, 2004. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3433A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on April 23, 2004. NET states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that NET has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3434A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Williams without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Williams of the complaint and Williams responded on April 28, 2004. We find that Williams did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3435A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on June 4, 2004. We find that New Access did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3436A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' local toll service had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain a separate authorization for IntraLATA service as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3437A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to USAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAT of the complaint and USAT responded on July 28, 2004. USAT states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when USAT purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3438A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Tralee without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tralee of the complaint and Tralee responded on September 28, 2004. We find that Tralee did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3439A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Ridley without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ridley of the complaint and Ridley responded on May 26, 2004. We find that Ridley did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3440A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from the authorized carrier to Main Street Telephone Company to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on May 26, 2004. Main Street did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Main Street has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3441A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaints and New Rochelle responded. New Rochelle states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that New Rochelle has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that New Rochelle's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3448A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 4, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3450A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3451A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states they are unable to provide copies of the signed LOA for each Complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3452A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states it is unable to provide copies of the signed LOA for each Complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3453A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3460A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comtech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtech of the complaint and Comtech responded on March 31, 2003. Comtech has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3461A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on June 21, 2004. Matrix has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3462A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on October 7, 2004. NALD states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3463A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Bullseye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaint and Bullseye responded on June 4, 2004. Bullseye states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Bullseye's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Bullseye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3464A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Bullseye without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaints and Bullseye responded. Bullseye, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Bullseye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Bullseye's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3465A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on September 7, 2004. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Rochelle's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that New Rochelle
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifiers, however, failed to confirm that the person on each call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3468A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on April 7, 2004. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3469A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through letter of agencies. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3471A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3484A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Ivantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ivantage of the complaints and Ivantage responded. Ivantage has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Ivantage in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3485A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from American Phone Company (American Phone) to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on February 10, 2004. We find that NECC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3486A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) to National Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Access of the complaint and National Access responded on April 13, 2004. National Access states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to a clerical error by its sales representative. We find that National Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3487A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from EZTel Network Services (EZTel) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 11, 2004. We find that Qwest has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3488A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Legent of the complaints and Legent responded. Legent states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. Legent's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm a change for Complainants' intraLATA service. We find that Legent has not produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3489A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on March 12, 2004. OneLink states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3490A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Sprint) to Global Teldata without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global Teldata of the complaint and Global Teldata responded on April 22, 2004. Global Teldata states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that Global Teldata has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the Global
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3525A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Net895 to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on June 9, 2004. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3526A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. Based on information obtained from ACN and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that ACN has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3527A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Excel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Excel's verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of the subscribers as required by our rules. Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3528A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Spectrotel's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3537A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 26, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3538A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3539A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3540A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3541A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 2, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's local service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3542A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 10, 2004. MCI states that it submited a request to have service switched to MCI. MCI however, failed to obtain a recorded third party verification a signed letter of verification. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3543A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3544A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3557A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3626A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on September 27, 2004. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3627A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on July 9, 2004. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3628A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on September 8, 2004. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Rochelle's verifier however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that New Rochelle's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3629A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SGC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SGC of the complaint and SGC responded on August 23, 2004. SGC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SGC's verifier however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that SGC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3630A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 19, 2004. NALD states that Complainant's long distance service provider was switched due to a clerical error. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3631A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 9, 2004. Qwest states that Complainant's telephone number was incorrectly entered into its database. We find that Qwest have failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3632A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3633A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to IP without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IP of the complaints and IP responded. IP indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. IP's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. IP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3634A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3635A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3635A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3635A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Spectrotel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3636A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3637A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaints and SBC responded. SBC states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3638A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3643A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 20, 2004. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3644A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to USAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAT of the complaint and USAT responded on June 7, 2004. We find that USAT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3645A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on December 22, 2003. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3711A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on February 19, 2004. New Century submitted a third party verification recording as authorization for the switch of the Complainant's service. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3714A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 5, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3715A1.txt
  • on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on December 19, 2003. Sprint responded on January 23, 2004. In its response, Sprint states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Sprint Local. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Local of the complaint and Sprint Local responded on February 26, 2004. Sprint Local admits that it mistakenly changed the Complainant's telecommunications service provider back to Sprint . We find that Sprint Local has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3716A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3717A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3718A1.txt
  • this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. We served MCI, Inc. (MCI) and MCI responded. In its responses, reference is made to the local exchange carrier for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon states that the orders for Complainants services were incorrectly processed by Verizon. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3719A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3720A1.txt
  • Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T on December 5, 2003. AT&T responded on January 9, 2004. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made based on contact between Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, and Complainant and, moreover, that Verizon initiated the order. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 18, 2004. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed by Verizon to AT&T on the service order. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3721A1.txt
  • Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T Corporation on December 29, 2003. AT&T responded on January 30, 2004. In their response the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 19, 2004. Sprint admits that the Complainant's long distance and local carrier service was mistakenly changed to AT&T on the service order. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3722A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3723A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications to Tel West without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tel West of the complaint and Tel West responded on June 1, 2004. Tel West states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Tel West has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Tel West's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3724A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3725A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3726A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 17, 2004. AT&T states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. The verifier, however, failed to confirm the number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3727A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 13, 2004. AT&T states in its response that it inadvertently keyed in the wrong telephone number during the processing of an order, resulting in a switch of the Complainant's number. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3728A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3729A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3730A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 31, 2004. AT&T admits in its response that due to a provisioning error, the Complainant's interLATA and intraLATA were switched to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3731A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3732A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaints and Vartec responded. Vartec states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Vartec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that Vartec's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3733A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BBG of the complaints and BBG responded. We find that BBG did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3734A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3734A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3734A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from KISS Long distance to V-3 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified V-3 of the complaint and V-3 responded on June 1, 2004. V-3 has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization for the switch, as required by our rules. We find that V-3 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3735A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NTT Telecommunications to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on June 22, 2004. Comcast admits that due to a clerical error, Complainant's intraLATA and interLATA were switched. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Comcast's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3736A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on June 17, 2004. Acceris states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Acceris has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Acceris' actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3737A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3738A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Ameritech to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 8, 2004. AT&T has obtained a third party verification (TPV) recording as proof of authorization as required by our rules. AT&T's verifier, however, has failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the TPV was authorized to confirm the switch. We find that AT&T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3739A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 25, 2004. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. There was more than one individual responding to the questions asked by the third-party verifier. Thus, the third-party verification recording is not a complete verification by either individual. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3740A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 15, 2004. CTS states that it switched Complainant's service when one of its customers completed a letter of agency (LOA). The LOA provided by CTS's, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that CTS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3741A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on August 16, 2004. CTS states that it switched Complainant's service when one of its customers completed a letter of agency (LOA). The telephone number that was switched, however, does not match the telephone number on the LOA. We find that CTS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3742A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to USAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USAT of the complaint and USAT responded on August 17, 2004. USAT states that it is an unbundled network element platform provider who changed its long distance vendor from Qwest to Global Crossing (Global) in September, 2001, and that some of USAT's customers were moved to Global's network. As such, USAT continues, some
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3743A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Pioneer Telephone Company to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 25, 2004. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. When the third-party verifier asked Complainant if he had agreed to have his long distance service switched, Complainant answered, ``Yes, only for international.'' International service, however, is not a separate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3744A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Yestel to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on June 29, 2004. Matrix states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Matrix has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3745A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. Upon review of CTS's responses, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of letters of agenciy with incorrect names was beyond the control of CTS.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3746A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to VinaKom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VinaKom of the complaint and VinaKom responded on April 14, 2004. VinaKom states that Complainant's telephone service was switched due to an agent, who was subsequently terminated, falsely completing a letter of agency (LOA) and pre-dating the LOA. We find that VinaKom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3747A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Ameritel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritel of the complaint and Ameritel responded on June 30, 2004. Ameritel states that it inadvertently switched complainant's telephone service Ameritel has failed to provide a Letter of Agency or third party verification(TPV) as proof of the authorization for the switches as required by our rules. We find that Ameritel has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3748A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on March 10, 2004. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that Americatel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3749A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on April 13, 2004. ACN states that authorization was received through a letter of agency. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3750A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24,2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 12, 2004. LCR states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3751A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from OneStar Long Distance, Inc. (OneStar) to Coordinated Billing Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing Services of the complaint and Coordinated Billing Services responded on April 20, 2004. We find that Coordinated Billing Services did not violate our carrier change rules. Coordinated Billing Service's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Coordinated Billing Service has produced clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3752A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom) to CenturyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on April 20, 2004. We find that CenturyTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3753A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia Communications without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia Communications of the complaint and Cordia Communications responded on May 4, 2004. Cordia Communications states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of Cordia Communications's response, we find that Cordia Communications has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3754A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 14, 2004. LCR states that complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error by LCR's sales representative. LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3755A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on April 14, 2004. New Century states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's sales representative failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules We find that New Century has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3756A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on May 26, 2004. New Century states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3757A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on May 21, 2004. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch for the intraLATA service. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3758A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CallWave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CallWave of the complaint and CallWave responded on August 9, 2004. We find that CallWave did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3759A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 16, 2004. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3760A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on June 9, 2004. Upon review of ATC's response, we find that ATC has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3761A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 28, 2004. AT&T states that it is unable to provide the third party verification recording or letter of agency as proof of the authorization of the switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3762A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 27, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3763A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 13, 2004. AT&T states that it switched Complainant's service and submitted an electronic letter of agency (ELOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. The ELOA, however, is not dated by the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3764A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 26, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3765A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 21, 2004. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3766A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 22, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3767A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3768A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3769A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Isterra Primus Telecommunications (Isterra) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 26, 2004. MCI states that the account was inadvertently changed as a result of a data entry error. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss MCI's liability below. MCI must remove all charges
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3770A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 1, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3771A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 29, 2004. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave the incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3772A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 11, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3773A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 14, 2004. MCI's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3774A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Upon review of MCI's responses, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of MCI. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3775A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (Primus) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 7, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3776A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 8, 2004. MCI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3777A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3778A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3779A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states they are unable to provide copies of the signed LOA for each Complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3780A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3781A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3782A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3783A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 22, 2004. Sprint states that the account was established based on information forwarded by Sprint PCS. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of the signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3822A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3823A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3846A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 13, 2003. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3847A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on January 15, 2004. We find that Vartec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3853A1.txt
  • the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T Corporation on February 13, 2004. AT&T responded on March 11, 2004. In their response the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 28, 2004. Sprint admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to AT&T on the service order. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3854A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 24, 2004. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3855A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on March 15, 2004. We find that WilTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3858A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on March 8, 2004. We find that Lightyear did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3863A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 15, 2004. AT&T has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3924A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of letters of agency with incorrect names was beyond the control of CTS. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3925A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaints and WilTel responded. We find that WilTel's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3926A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lucky Dog of the complaints and Lucky Dog responded. We find that Lucky Dog's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3927A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. Upon review of ACN responses, we find that ACN has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in ACN's receipt of letters of agency with incorrect names were beyond the carrier's control. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3928A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3929A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on June 1, 2004. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Quasar's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainant wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3930A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on June 8, 2004. IDT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. IDT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3931A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on March 15, 2004. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3932A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 20, 2004. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3933A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc. to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 20, 2004. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3934A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Zone Telecom, Inc. to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 7, 2004. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3935A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 10, 2004. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3936A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc.(MCI) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 12, 2004. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3937A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded LCR states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3938A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the complainants wanted to change intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3939A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on September 8, 2003. In its response, Advantage states that it was submitting a copy of the third party verification (TPV) recording. There was no TPV recording accompanying Advantage's response. We contacted Advantage and requested the recording, but none was sent. We find that Advantage has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3940A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. (Global Crossing) to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on May 13, 2004. Clear World states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Clear World's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Clear World has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3941A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on February 26, 2004. The complaint asserts that Horizon changed the Complainant's service twice. Horizon, however, did not provide a TPV for the second change of service nor did it obtain authorization for both numbers switched in the first change of service. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3942A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to CenturyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on March 9, 2004. CenturyTel states that authorization was received per the customer's request. CenturyTel has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that CenturyTel has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3943A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Verizon to ANL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANL of the complaint. ANL has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ANL to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ANL's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3949A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to New Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Access of the complaint and New Access responded on December 18, 2003. We find that New Access did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cierra without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cierra of the complaint and Cierra responded on April 1, 2003. Cierra states in its response that it acquired Complainant's account when it purchased the customer base of another carrier. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3951A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaints alleging that Complainant's service providers had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded. Upon review of Allegiance's response, we find that Allegiance has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Allegiance's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3952A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on December 16, 2003. Upon review of Excel's response, we find that Excel has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3953A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ARBOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ARBOS of the complaint and ARBOS responded on April 7, 2003. ARBOS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that ARBOS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3954A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to UBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UBC of the complaint and UBC responded on October 4, 2002. Upon review of UBC's response, we find that UBC has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in UBC's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3955A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on June 22, 2004. NALD admits in its response that the Complainant's long distance service was switched due to a clerical error by the sales representative. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3956A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and Bulls Eye responded on December 16, 2003. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that BullsEye's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3957A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states in its responses that the switches occurred as the result of clerical errors on the part of its sales representatives. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3958A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states in its responses that the switches occurred as a result of clerical errors on the part of its sales representatives. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3959A1.txt
  • Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served MCI on May 21, 2004. MCI responded on July 27, 2004. In its response it states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on September 28, 2004. Verizon admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant's long distance service to MCI. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3960A1.txt
  • 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capsule Communications, Inc. (Capsule ) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on April 30, 2004. Sprint responded on June 7, 2004. In its response it states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Qwest . Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 20, 2004. Qwest admits that it mistakenly changed the Complainant's long distance service to Sprint. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest 's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3961A1.txt
  • Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. We served Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) and Sprint responded. In its responses, reference is made to the local exchange carrier for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaints and SBC responded. SBC admits that it mistakenly switched Complainants' service to Sprint. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3962A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3963A1.txt
  • received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on February 13, 2004. Sprint responded on March 26, 2004. In its response it states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Cox. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on May 7, 2004. Cox admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant's long distance service to Sprint. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cox's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3964A1.txt
  • complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on August 9, 2004. Sprint responded on September 8, 2004. In its response Sprint states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Cox. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on November 17, 2004. Cox admits that it mistakenly switched Complainant's long distance service to Sprint. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cox's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3965A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 11, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3966A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3967A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 17, 2004. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave the incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3968A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 8, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3969A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3970A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states it is unable to provide copies of the signed LOA for each Complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3971A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 6, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3972A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3973A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3974A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3975A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 1, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3976A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states it is unable to provide copies of the signed LOA for each complainant as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3992A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complaint's telecommunications service providers had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded August 19, 2004. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3994A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on April 23, 2004. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3995A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Netone International to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 27, 2004. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-3999A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4000A1.txt
  • We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T Corporation on May 21, 2004. AT&T responded on June 15, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 8, 2004. Sprint admits that it mistakenly changed complainant's long distance service to AT&T. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4001A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on June 18, 2003. Upon review of Global's response, we find that Global has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Global's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4002A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on December 5, 2003. ATC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that ATC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4003A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 4, 2004. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the authorization for the switch. The LOA, however, is not signed by the Complainant as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4014A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on July 13, 2004. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4015A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on July 27, 2004. Americatel has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switches as required by our rules. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4016A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on July 6, 2004. Sage states that Complainant's telephone service was switched due to a Sage conversion order mistake. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sage's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4017A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4017A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4017A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by the LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4018A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 9, 2004. We find that CTS did not violate our carrier change rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of an LOA with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's control. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4019A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4020A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through either third party verifications or a letter of agency. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4024A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Telecom (Birch) to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on July 28, 2003. ATC states that the authorization for the switch was confirmed through a third party recording. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the consumer on the recording was authorized to make the switch as required by our rules. We find that ATC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4038A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4038A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4038A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Touch America to BUI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BUI of the complaint and BUI responded on June 7, 2004. BUI states in its response that it acquired Complainant's account when it purchased the customer base of another carrier. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4039A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4039A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4039A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing Communications (Broadwing) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 15, 2004. AT&T admits in its response that it mistakenly switched the Complainant's long distance service to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4040A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SWB) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on June 2, 2004. LCR admits in its response that a switch occurred as a result of a clerical error by its sales representative. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4041A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ameritech to KTNT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified KTNT of the complaint and KTNT responded on May 17, 2004. We find that KTNT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-4042A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-450A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on November 3, 2003. Lightyear states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Lightyear's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-451A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on March 6, 2003. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. 011's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-452A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on September 22, 2003. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-453A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on October 6, 2003. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to obtain a confirmation of services to be switched and the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-454A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ClearChoice to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on December 3, 2003. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-455A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 15, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-456A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on January 5, 2004. International states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. International's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that International has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-457A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SBC) and AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to IQ without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IQ of the complaint and IQ responded on July 2, 2003. IQ has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by IQ in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-467A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain a separate authorization from each Complainant for local service as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-468A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 19, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). When Sprint's verifier asked the person on the TPV if that person was authorized to make changes to the telephone service, the person answered no, and, in turn the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-469A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-470A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 12, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency was signed and processed via Sprint's website. Sprint's letter of agency, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-471A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 30, 2004. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain a separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-472A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed or confirmation was received through third party verification (TPV). However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs or a recorded copy of the TPV. Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-473A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed via its website. Sprint's LOAs, however, forced the consumers to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of our rules. Sprint has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-474A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of agency (LOA) were signed and processed or confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs or a recorded copy of the TPV. Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-475A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-477A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 28, 2003. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-478A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's long distance service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-479A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 10, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-480A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-481A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. WorldCom has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-482A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 1, 2002. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-484A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-485A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-486A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 11, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-487A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 1, 2003. WorldCom, however, did not provide a letter of agency or third party verification tape as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-488A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-488A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-488A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on February 13, 2003. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-489A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-489A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-489A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 10, 2002. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-490A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-490A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-490A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Ameritech to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 4, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-491A1.txt
  • if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainants'- local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaints filed by Complainants against WorldCom ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Chief Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau APPENDIX A INFORMAL COMPLAINT NUMBER COMPLAINANT(S) DATE OF COMPLAINT DATE OF CARRIER RESPONSE 01-S64336 Patricia Murphy September 12, 2001 November 15, 2001 01-S64384 MerlineRufledt August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-492A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 5, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-493A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 27, 2001. WorldCom, however, did not provided any evidence of a valid authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA toll service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-494A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 21, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's long distance service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-495A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-496A1.txt
  • if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. the complaint and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaints filed by Complainants against WorldCom ARE DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Nancy A. Stevenson, Acting Deputy Chief Policy Division Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau APPENDIX INFORMAL COMPLAINT NUMBER COMPLAINANT(S) DATE OF COMPLAINT DATE OF CARRIER RESPONSE 01-S56100 Linda Iams June 19, 2001 August 14, 2001 03-S82991 Rita Gagelman March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-497A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on May 17, 2002. WorldCom states that it cannot produce a third party verification tape due to a systems malfunction. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-498A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-499A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints, alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorizations. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaints and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-505A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on August 22, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-506A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Ess.com without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ess.com of the complaint and Ess.com responded on August 4, 2003. We find that Ess.com did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-507A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 7, 2003. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-508A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-509A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Private without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Private of the complaint and Private responded on February 5, 2003. We find that Private did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-510A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on December 30, 2003. We find that VarTec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-511A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to NBWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NBWC of the complaint and NBWC responded on January 14, 2004. We find that NBWC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-512A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to from Southwestern Bell to Bullseye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaint and Bullseye responded on November 4, 2003. We find that Bullseye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-513A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CenturyTel to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 8, 2003. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-514A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 3. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on March 19, 2003. We find that Integretel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-515A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 3. We receive Complaintant's complaint on January , alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on March 19, 2003. We find that Integretel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-516A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Universal without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaints and Universal responded. Universal states that Complainants authorized the change in services. Universal, however, failed to provide a third party verification tapes or letter of agencies as required by our rules. Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-517A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-518A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR admits that it switched the Complainant's telecommunications service provider due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized those carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-519A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on April 1, 2003. International submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. International's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that International has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-520A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-521A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WCSS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WCSS of the complaints and WCSS responded. WCSS states that Complainants authorized the change in services. WCSS, however, failed to provide third party verification tapes or letters of agency as required by our rules. WCSS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-522A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to NOL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOL of the complaint and NOL responded on January 7, 2003. We find that NOL did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-528A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-529A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-530A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-531A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-532A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-533A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the factc before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-534A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on December 16, 2003. ATS has submitted a third party verification transcript as authorization. ATS sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-535A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on May 29, 2003. TCI has submitted a third party verification transcript as authorization. The verifier, however, has failed to confirm the telephone number as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-536A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on August 4, 2003. Vartec has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. The LOA does not contain the required language that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLata preferred interexchange carrier for any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-537A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to PVT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PVT of the complaints and PVT responded. PVT has submitted third party verification tapes as proof of authorization. PVT's verifiers, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that PVT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-538A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to One Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Link of the complaint and One Link responded on January 22, 2004. One Link has submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of authorization for the switch. One Link's verifier, however, has failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that One Link
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-539A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on December 31, 2003. LDS has submitted a third party verification transcript as authorization. The verifier, however, has failed to request authorization for a change to local toll service as required by our rules. We find that LDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-552A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on December 20, 2003. SBC Long Distance has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-553A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on December 10, 2003. . We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-554A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on December 8, 2003. ADST submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. ADST's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-555A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on May 29, 2003. Global states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Global's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established and failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-556A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on April 1, 2002. We find that McLeod did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-557A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to Globalinx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalinx of the complaint and Globalinx responded on Ju1y 11, 2003. Globalinx has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-558A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primo Communications to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 3, 2003. NECC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-559A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Lucky Dog without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lucky Dog of the complaint and Lucky Dog responded on December 9, 2003. We find that Luck Dog's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' long distance service provider. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-560A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on November 17, 2003. AllTel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AllTel's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-561A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 2, 2003. Primus admits that it switched the Complainant's telecommunications service provider due to a computer error. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized those carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-562A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Services to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on August 14, 2003. Yestel submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Yestel's verifier, however, confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier changes, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-563A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 9, 2003. LCR admits that it switched the Complainant's telecommunications service provider due to a clerical error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized those carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-571A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on March 22, 2002. Vox indicated that Complainant signed a letter of agency authorizing a change in service. Vox's letter of authorization (LOA), however, failed to confirm that Complainant understands that only one carrier can be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-638A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2003, alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 18, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-639A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 10, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-640A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. We find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-641A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 30, 2002. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-642A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Network One to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2004. WorldCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of WorldCom's response, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-643A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service had been changed AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 28, 2002. WorldCom states that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that WorldCom's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-644A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 4, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-645A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints on WorldCom alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that WorldCom has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-646A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 24, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-647A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on March 28, 2002. WorldCom states that it switched Complainant's service twice. During the third party verification for the second switch, WorldCom's third party verifier failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-648A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company LP (Sprint) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-649A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance services had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on September 13, 2001. Advantage states that Complainant authorized the change in services. Advantage's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA toll provider as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-650A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 16, 2003. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-651A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc., to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on April 30, 2002. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-652A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 13, 2003. WorldCom states that another customer provided Complainant's telephone number. WorldCom, however, is unable to provide any evidence to prove this assertion. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-653A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from VarTec Telecom, Inc., (VarTec) to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 10, 2003. WorldCom stated that one of its other customers inadvertently provided the Complainant's telephone number and authorized the switch of that number to WorldCom. The third party verification recording provided by WorldCom, however, does not confirm the Complainant's phone number as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-654A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 22, 2003. WorldCom states that Complainant authorized the change in service. WorldCom's third party verifier, failed to obtain authorization to change Complainant's long distance service as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-661A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2001 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 30, 2001. Sprint states that authorization was received when Complainant signed a letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA was attached to a rebate form. Our rules state that an LOA shall not be combined on the same document, screen, or webpage with inducements of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-662A1.txt
  • authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2002, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll and long distance service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company L.P. (Sprint) to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on June 24, 2002. Advantage stated that Complainant's service was changed due to an error in data entry. We found that that Advantage failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Advantage now files a petition for reconsideration. In its petition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-663A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed USA without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USA of the complaints and USA responded. In its responses, USA stated that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when it purchased another company's customer base. We found that USA, failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. USA now files petitions for reconsideration. In its petitions, USA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-664A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed APS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaints and APS responded. In its responses, APS provided third party verification recordings as evidence of valid authorized changes of complainants' service. In each case, we found that APS violated our carrier change rules because its sales representative failed to drop off the line once the three way connection with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-665A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on August 6, 2002. Americatel stated that the Complainant ``received said invoices in error'' and ``in very rare cases, the data contains errors and it appears that such was the case in this instance.'' We found that Americatel had failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-801A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on October 13, 2003. We find that SBC Long Distance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-802A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Connect without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaints and Connect responded. Connect states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Connect in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-803A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 22, 2004. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-804A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on December 4, 2003. We find that ClearWorld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 20, 2003. Global has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-806A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on November 17, 2003. OTC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-807A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on December 30, 2003. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-808A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on February 10, 2004. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-809A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on February 24, 2004. IDT admits that it mistakenly switch Complainant's long distance service without authorization and verification. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-80A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-80A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-80A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BetterWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BetterWorld of the complaint and BetterWorld responded on July 18, 2003. BetterWorld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BetterWorld's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that BetterWorld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-810A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Lucky Dog without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lucky Dog of the complaint and Lucky Dog responded on February 17, 2004. We find that Luck Dog's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' long distance service provider. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-811A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-812A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ADST without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaints and ADST responded. ADST however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-813A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Net895 to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globalcom of the complaint and Globalcom responded on January 30, 2003. Globalcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Globalcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globalcom's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-816A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on July 17, 2002. Broadwing has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-817A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ATG/PATLIVE to CCS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCS of the complaint and CCS responded on October 2, 2003. CCS states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CCS's LOA, however, does not contain the Complainant's address and each telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-818A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on February 4, 2004. Clearworld states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Clearworld's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-819A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to Xspedius without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Xspedius of the complaint and Xspedius responded on February 5, 2004. Xspedius states that Complainant's interlata service was switched due to a billing error. We find that Xspedius has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Xspedius's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-81A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-81A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-81A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 29, 2003. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's sales representative, however, failed to drop of the line once the three-way connection was established and failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-820A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Core to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 21, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-821A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on February 6, 2004. LCR states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-822A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on February 10, 2004. Vox indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Vox's LOA, however, failed to contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-823A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on December 19, 2003. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-824A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on December 23, 2003. Lightyear has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-825A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR states that it mistakenly entered Complainants' telephone numbers. LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss LCR's liability below. LCR has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-826A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BCLD of the complaint and BCLD responded on April 1, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that BCLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-827A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on January 26, 2004. Lightyear states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Lightyear's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Lightyear has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-829A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on July 31, 2003. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to obtain and include appropriate verification data such as, for example, the subscriber's date of birth or social security number. We find that Spectrotel has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-82A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-82A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-82A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AllTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AllTel of the complaint and AllTel responded on December 9, 2003. AllTel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that AllTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AllTel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-830A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NALD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants'. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-831A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on November 26, 2003. Comcast has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-832A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on December 29, 2003. Talk states that authorization was received and through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-833A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 26, 2004. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-834A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 22, 2003. NECC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-835A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on January 6, 2004. Allegiance states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Allegiance's LOA, however, does not contain each telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Allegiance has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-836A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing to Winstar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Winstar of the complaint and Winstar responded on January 9, 2004. Winstar states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Winstar's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's interstate or intraLATA toll carrier, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-837A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ComLogic, Inc. to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on December 18, 2003. OTC states that authorization was received through third party verification. OTC's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-838A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Comcast to LifeLine without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LifeLine of the complaint and LifeLine responded on December 3, 2003. LifeLine did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that LifeLine has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LifeLine's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-839A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on January 14, 2004. CBS states that authorization was received through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-83A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NET to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on November 12, 2003. Globcom did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-840A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on January 14, 2004. OneLink states that authorization was received through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-841A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Powercom to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on January 20, 2004. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CBS's verifier, however, did not obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll service. We find that CBS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-842A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cierracom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cierracom of the complaint and Cierracom responded on October 16, 2002. Cierracom indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Cierracom's LOA, however, failed to inform subscriber that they may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-843A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on February 27, 2004. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDA's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll service. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-844A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 18, 2003. ACN has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-845A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BTI to RSL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RSL of the complaint and RSL responded on September 18, 2002. RSL has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-848A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 3. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Allegiance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Allegiance of the complaint and Allegiance responded on October 3, 2003. We find that Allegiance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-849A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on August 6, 2003. Z-Tel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-84A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-84A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-84A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OTC of the complaint and OTC responded on December 1, 2003. OTC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OTC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-850A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on September 4, 2003. PowerNet has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-851A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed AT&T to Vox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vox of the complaint and Vox responded on September 3, 2003. Vox states that authorization was confirmed when a signed letter of authorization was received and processed. Vox's letter of authorization, however, failed to contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Vox has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-852A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunication service provider had been changed from AT&T to Total Call without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Total Call of the complaint and Total Call responded on March 5, 2004. Total Call states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched to to a data entry error. We find that Total Call has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Total
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-853A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each services sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-854A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 3. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and Telecom USA responded on March 3, 2004. We find that Telecom USA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-855A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephon Company to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on February 26, 2004. We find that VarTec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-856A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ADST without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADST of the complaint and ADST responded on December 17, 2003. ADST did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that ADST has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ADST's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-857A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to TDS Metrocom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS Metrocom of the complaint and TDS Metrocom responded on May 28, 2003. We find that TDS Metrocom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-858A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on April 21, 2003. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-859A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to International without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified International of the complaint and International responded on January 8, 2003. International submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. International's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that International has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-85A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Silverleaf without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silverleaf of the complaint on October 11, 2002. Silverleaf has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Silverleaf to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Silverleaf's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-860A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 19, 2004. NCT submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. NCT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-861A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint on April 22, 2002. One Star has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of One Star to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that One Star's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-862A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom, Inc. to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 23, 2003. Based on information obtained by Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-863A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 12, 2002. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). AT&T's TPV however failed to contain affirmative responses to the questions asked as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-864A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2002 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 4, 2003. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed when a promotional check was signed and deposited into Complainant's bank. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-865A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-866A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 11, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for any service being sold as required by our rules. Also, during the verification process the Complainant stated several times that he wished
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-867A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when orders for service were forwarded by Sprint PCS or Radio Shack. However, Sprint was unable to provide copies of the signed LOAs. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-868A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-869A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Sprint's receipt of an LOA with an incorrect name was beyond the carrier's control. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-86A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-86A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-86A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Globel (PNG) to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on December 2, 2003. Primus states that authorization was confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-871A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-872A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-873A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 6, 2004. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through Third Party Verification. Sprint's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-874A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 11, 2003. Sprint indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-875A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 13, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Sprint's LOA, however, failed to contain a date, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-876A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-877A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on information obtained by each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-878A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 4, 2004. Sprint states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when a letter of agency was signed and processed via Sprint website. Sprint's letter of agency, however, forced the consumer to de-select any services they did not want to switch in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-879A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2001, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon North to INETBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INETBA of the complaint and INETBA responded on October 1, 2001. We find that INETBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-880A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-881A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-882A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-883A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on information provided by AT&T and by Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that AT&T has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-884A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-892A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2001, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from Varcom to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 30, 2001. We find that WorldCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-893A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Global Crossing to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 15, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-894A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on December 13, 2002. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carrier we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-895A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2002, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed from WorldCom to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on January 7, 2003. Upon review of WorldCom's responses, we find that WorldCom has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-896A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on June 6, 2003. We find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-949A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2003, alleging that Complainant's intraLATA toll service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded on October 16, 2003. WorldCom. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-950A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. Based on information provided by Complainant's local exchange carriers we find that WorldCom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-100A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR admits that it switched the Complainants' telecommunications service provider due to clerical errors. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized those carrier changes. Therefore, we find that LCR's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-101A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-102A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1160A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Verizon to Total Call without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Total Call of the complaint. Total Call has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Total Call to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Total Call's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1161A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation/America to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 5, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1162A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on October 26, 2004. Upon review of LCR response, we find that LCR has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect phone number was beyond the control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1163A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to CGI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CGI of the complaint and CGI responded on December 27, 2004. CGI has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch, as required by our rules. We find that CGI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1164A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on August 23, 2004. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1165A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2004, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on September 10, 2004. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1166A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded September 24, 2004. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1167A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Small Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Small Business of the complaint and Small Business responded on October 11, 2004. Small Business states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Small Business has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1168A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on November 1, 2004. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1169A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 5, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-116A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 26, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1170A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 3, 2005. Acceris states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Acceris's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1171A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on January 13, 2005. BullsEye states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1172A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BAK Communications LLC to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on January 10, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1173A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Long Distance (SBC) to Business Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Network of the complaint and Business Network responded on January 12, 2005. Business Network states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Business Network has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1174A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint. Cordia has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cordia to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1177A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 7, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1178A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 13, 2004. In its response, Comcast admits that due to a system routing issue, the customer's calls were being routed through Comcast. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1179A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on June 14, 2005. We find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-117A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Comcast to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 18, 2004. AT&T has failed to provide a audible/legible letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization of the switch as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1180A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on October 4, 2004. Business Network states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that NetOne has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1181A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1182A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from SBC to NorVergence without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NorVergence of the complaint. NorVergence has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NorVergence to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NorVergence's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1183A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1184A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 12, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1187A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 23, 2004. Qwest has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1188A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1189A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on August 13, 2004. VarTec has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by VarTec in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-118A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 6, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1190A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on January 20, 2005. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1191A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zone of the complaints and Zone responded. We find that Zone's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1192A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaints and TeleDias responded. TeleDias states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that TeleDias has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that TeleDias's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1193A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Farm Bureau without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Farm Bureau of the complaint and Farm Bureau responded on December 20, 2004. Farm Bureau states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that Farm Bureau has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1194A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to TDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaints and TDS responded. TDS however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. TDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that TDS's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1195A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on December 21, 2004. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sage's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1196A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Communications without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications of the complaint and Communications responded on December 8, 2004. Communications did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Communications has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Communications'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1197A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Evercom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Evercom of the complaint and Evercom responded on January 21, 2005. We find that Evercom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1198A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on December 14, 2004. Reduced states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Reduced's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Reduced has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 13, 2005. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-119A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 23, 2004. AT&T has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization for the switch which occurred March 29, 2004, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1201A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on January 3, 2005. Broadwing states that Complainant's telephone number was switched due to a clerical error. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1202A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global Communications (PowerNet) to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on December 6, 2004. Covista, however, was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency or third party verification. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1203A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on December 16, 2004. Cavalier admits in its response that, due to a data entry error, the Complainant's telecommunication service provider was switched to Cavalier. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1204A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Voice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Voice of the complaint. Voice has failed to respond to the Complaint. The failure of Voice to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing. We find that Voice has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Voice's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1205A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizonto New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on October 28, 2004. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that New Rochelle has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1206A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2003, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on June 29, 2004. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephones to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1207A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Tele Circuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Circuit of the complaint and Tele Circuit responded on July 12, 2004. Tele Circuit did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Tele Circuit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1208A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Discounted without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discounted of the complaint and Discounted responded on July 21, 2004. We find that Discounted did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1209A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon Long Distance of the complaint and Verizon Long Distance responded on July 19, 2004. We find that Verizon Long Distance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-120A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications (Qwest) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 8, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, CenturyTel. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded. CenturyTel states that due to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1210A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of letters of agency with incorrect names was beyond the control of CTS. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1211A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OPTICOM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OPTICOM of the complaint and OPTICOM responded on December 10, 2004. We find that OPTICOM did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1212A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on December 13, 2004. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1213A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on December 15, 2004. Reduced Rate did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Reduced Rate has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1214A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Touch 1 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Touch 1 of the complaint and Touch 1 responded on September 3, 2004. Touch 1 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Touch 1's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Touch 1 has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1215A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' local toll had been changed from their authorized carriers to Verizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Verizon's TPVs, however, do not contain oral authorizations as required by our rules. Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1216A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tralee without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tralee of the complaint and Tralee responded on December 8, 2004. We find that Tralee did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1217A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on December 20, 2004. We find that Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1218A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaints and VLD responded. VLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that VLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1219A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from McLeod to CoreCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CoreCom of the complaint and CoreCom responded on December 13, 2004. CoreCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). CoreCom's LOA however, failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult with as to whether a fee as required by our rules. We find that CoreCom has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-121A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 24, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded. Verizon states that due to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1221A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm a switch in Complainants' intraLATA toll service. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1222A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation (IDT) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 27, 2004. MCI has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1223A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Vartec to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 18, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established due to a processing error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1225A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 14, 2005. Sprint's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, did not confirm that Complainant wanted to switch local service as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1226A1.txt
  • received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served the Complaint on MCI on November 19, 2004. MCI responded on January 14, 2005. In its response, MCI states the switch was made based on contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 10, 2005. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to MCI. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1227A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1228A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 25, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's verifier, however, incorrectly defined intraLATA service as long distance service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1229A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed and confirmed through third party verifications. The verifiers, however, failed to confirm a switch in Complainants' local service. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-122A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1230A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1231A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the name on the letter of agency was incorrect was beyond the control of Sprint. We find that Sprint has not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1232A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 25, 2005. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Sprint's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1233A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on December 6, 2004. BullsEye states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BullsEye, however, only provided a transcript and not the actual third party verification recording as required by our rules. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1234A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainant's telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states it is unable to provide a copy of the signed letter of authorization or third party verification for either Complainant, as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1235A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1236A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 4, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1248A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on August 12, 2004. We find that PNG did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1249A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on July 28, 2004. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-124A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec Telecom, Inc. to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on July 21, 2004. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1250A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier, SBC, of the complaint and SBC responded on November 17, 2004. SBC admits that there was an error in routing Complainant's interLATA calls through SBC; instead, the calls were being routed through the AT&T network. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1252A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 13, 2005. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LCR has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1253A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT Corporation/America to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on August 9, 2004. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1256A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 18, 2004. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1260A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Orbit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Orbit of the complaint and Orbit responded on March 1, 2005. Orbit states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Orbit's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Orbit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1261A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on January 24, 2005. McLeodUSA has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-126A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on June 23, 2004. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainant's telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions did not result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-127A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-128A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 3, 2004. Verizon admits in its response that the Complainant's calls were erroneously routed through AT&T. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-131A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-132A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1368A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on January 12, 2005. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1369A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on November 19, 2004. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1370A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USTEL of the complaint and USTEL responded on November 5, 2004. USTEL states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that USTEL has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1371A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cypress without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cypress of the complaint and Cypress responded on April 6, 2005. Cypress states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error by Cypress. We find that Cypress has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cypress's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1373A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 15, 2004. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1374A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 8, 2004. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1375A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 16, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1376A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 1, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1377A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on April 21, 2005. LDC states that Complainant's service was switched erroneously. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1378A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 16, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1379A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on April 14, 2005. GTC states that Complainant's telecommunications service was inadvertently switched. We find that GTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1380A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on September 15, 2004. We find that LCR did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1383A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OPTICOM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OPTICOM of the complaint and OPTICOM responded on October 5, 2004. We find that OPTICOM did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1384A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 25, 2005. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1385A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on December 1, 2004. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to receive separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1386A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 2, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-138A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 18, 2004. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through an automated third party verification (TPV). Verizon's TPV required the subscriber to provide authorization by pressing digits on the subscriber's telephone in response to verification questions. Our third party verification rules, however, require
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1395A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1396A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1397A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 22, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1398A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 27, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, RCN. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded. RCN has failed to submit a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1399A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-139A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by the LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1400A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1401A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1402A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1403A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 21, 2005. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1407A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 7, 2005. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that A&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1409A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Verizon Long Distance (VZLD) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on August 24, 2004. In its response, reference is made to the local exchange carrier, Verizon, for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 24, 2005. Verizon states that Complainant's telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1410A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Yestel, Inc. to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 16, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1411A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on 9, 2004. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1412A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Online, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Online, Inc. of the complaint and America Online, Inc. responded on November 4, 2004. We find that America Online, Inc. did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1413A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Epicus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Epicus of the complaint and Epicus responded on September 27, 2004. Epicus states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Epicus's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Epicus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1414A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on October 13, 2004. We find that Opex did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1415A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 22, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1416A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Communications Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaint and Communications Billing responded on January 14, 2005. Communications Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Communications Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1417A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on January 10, 2005. We find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1418A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on April 19, 2005. New Century has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1419A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on February 3, 2005. We find that VZLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1420A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global Communications (PNG) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 10, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1421A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on January 5, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1422A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Network Enhanced Technologies, Inc. (NET) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 10, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1423A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 15, 2005. ACN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1424A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on January 31, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1425A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1426A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1427A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Tellis without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tellis of the complaint and Tellis responded. We find that Tellis did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1428A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1429A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on February 23, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-142A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint) to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 26, 2004. LCR states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, the TPV that was provided was inaudible. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1430A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on February 23, 2005. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1431A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaints on March 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on February 23, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1433A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 1, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1434A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 22, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established on July 1, 2004. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1435A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 15, 2005. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Sprint's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1436A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 16, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1437A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 26, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1438A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1439A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 19, 2003. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification to switch local, intraLATA, and interLATA service. Sprint's verifier, however, did not confirm that Complainant wanted to switch local or intraLATA service. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1440A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of Sprint. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1441A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 30, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's, verifier however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1442A1.txt
  • telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint Long Distance) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint Long Distance on December 22, 2004. Sprint Long Distance responded on January 14, 2005. In its response Sprint Long Distance states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 17, 2005. Sprint admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to Sprint Long Distance. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1443A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 22, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1444A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1445A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1446A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on November 22, 2004. GTC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by GTC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1447A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on May 4, 2005. We find that SBC Long Distance did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1448A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on January 12, 2005. We find that GTC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1449A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on April 13, 2005. ACN states that Complainant's service was switched when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-144A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Pro Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pro Plus of the complaint and Pro Plus responded on August 19, 2004. Pro Plus has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Pro Plus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1450A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from AT&T to Broadview Networks without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview Networks of the complaint and Broadview Networks responded on April 8, 2005. Broadview Networks states that Complainant's service was inadvertently switched. We find that Broadview Networks has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadview Networks's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1452A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed from MCI to Communications Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaint and Communications Billing responded on January 31, 2005. Communications Billing did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Communications Billing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1453A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 4, 2005. LCR has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1454A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Trinsic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint and Trinsic responded on March 8, 2005. Trinsic states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Trinsic has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1455A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on February 28, 2005. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1456A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 1, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1457A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 23, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1458A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on April 4, 2005. BellSouth admits that the order to change Complainant's interLATA service was issued in error. We find that BellSouth has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BellSouth's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1459A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 15, 2005. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-145A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation. (AT&T) to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on March 19, 2004. TeleUno states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1460A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on January 7, 2005. Cordia did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cordia's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1462A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on February 11, 2005. We find that Broadwing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1463A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 5, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1464A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BOptions without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOptions of the complaint and BOptions responded on March 24, 2005. BOptions states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BOptions has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1465A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 31, 2005. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1466A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Globcom, Inc. (Globcom) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 13, 2005. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. SBC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1467A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Star of the complaint and Star responded on March 12, 2005. Star states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Star's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the complainant wanted to switch, as required by our rules. We find that Star has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1468A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 23, 2005. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, Complainant revoked the decision to change long distance service before the third party verification was completed. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1469A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 8, 2005. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1470A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 14, 2005. Acceris states that Complainant's telecommunications service providers were changed when it purchased another company's customer base and, therefore, it did not use a letter of agency. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1471A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on October 19, 2004. Buzz states that the account was established due to a data entry error. We find that Buzz has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Buzz's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1472A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NALD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that Complainants authorized the change in services. NALD, however, failed to provide third party verification tapes or letters of agency as required by our rules. NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that NALD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1473A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on January 28, 2005. ATS admits that the order should have been rejected based on the customer's contingency in the third party verification recording. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1474A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1474A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1474A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint and Frontier responded on December 14, 2004. We find that Frontier did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1475A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on January 5, 2005. ACN states that Complainant's telephone number was switched due to an apparent order entry error. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1481A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 26, 2005. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-149A1.txt
  • Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served MCI on February 11, 2004. MCI responded on March 22, 2004. In its response MCI stated that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Ameritech. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on July 20, 2004. Ameritech admits that it mistakenly changed the Complainant's long distance service to MCI. We find that Ameritech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Ameritech's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1506A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on April 15, 2005. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1507A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 17, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1508A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on April 22, 2005. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-150A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1514A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on March 2, 2005. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1515A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 13, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1516A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaints and Comcast responded. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1517A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on February 18, 2005. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1518A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC Telecom, Inc. to Premier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Premier of the complaint and Premier responded on April 20, 2005. We find that Premier did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1519A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on April 20, 2005. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received when a signed electronic letter of agency was received and processed. Reduced Rate however, failed to provide a signed electronic copy of the letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-151A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1520A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 4, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1521A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Zoom Phone to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 28, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1522A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 30, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1524A1.txt
  • Commission's slamming liability rules at part 64, subpart K, and provided that a subscriber unsatisfied with the resolution of an informal slamming complaint had 45 days to file a formal complaint. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 208, 258. Section Number and Title: 1.716 Form. 1.717 Procedure. 1.718 Unsatisfied informal complaints; formal complaints relating back to the filing dates of informal complaints. 1.719 Informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258. Brief Description: These rules set forth many of the procedures that must be followed in order to prosecute and/or defend a formal complaint filed against a common carrier pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 208) alleging a violation of the Communications Act. Need: These rules result in the effective,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1527A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1528A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 3, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1529A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 17, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established in error despite the fact that the Complainant stated that she did not wish to switch to Sprint during the third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-152A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 30, 2004. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1530A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1531A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1532A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1533A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1534A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1535A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-153A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1541A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 12, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-154A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-155A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 7, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established as a result of a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-156A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 10, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-157A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscribers as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-158A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-159A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 17, 2004. Sprint states that the account was established on July 7, 2004. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency or third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-160A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 10, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1748A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Line Systems without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line Systems of the complaint and Line Systems responded on February 10, 2005. Line Systems states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Line Systems's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Line Systems has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1749A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on November 18, 2004. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1750A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Telecircuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecircuit of the complaint and Telecircuit responded on August 12, 2004. Telecircuit states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of Telecircuit's response, we find that Telecircuit has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1751A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to TNCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TNCI of the complaint and TNCI responded on May 18, 2005. TNCI has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that TNCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1752A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on February 18, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that TeleDias has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1753A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz Telecom of the complaint and Buzz Telecom responded on March 3, 2005. Buzz Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Buzz Telecom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1754A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on February 24, 2005. Talk America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1755A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on February 16, 2005. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. When asked by the person on the recording what ``long distance'' is, the verifier responded, ``state-to-state''. In addition to ``state-to-state'' service, long distance services also include intrastate interLATA calling and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1756A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 8, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1757A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 2, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1758A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 13, 2005. SBC has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1759A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to HelloCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified HelloCom of the complaint and HelloCom responded on April 6, 2005. HelloCom states that Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a technical error. We find that HelloCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the HelloCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1760A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on March 30, 2005. McLeodUSA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that McLeodUSA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1761A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on March 31, 2005. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Broadview has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1762A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on May 23, 2005. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1763A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on April 7, 2005. Matrix states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Matrix has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1764A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on May 2, 2005. Talk America has failed to a provide letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Talk America has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1765A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Business Network without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Network of the complaints and Business Network responded. Business Network states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Business Network has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1773A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1786A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 7, 2005. Sprint admits that the verification was incomplete. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1787A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 10, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established on March 10, 2004, but that Sprint was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1788A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 20, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1789A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1790A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1793A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Long Distance (SBC) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 31, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification due to a transaction error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1794A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance (Adelphia) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 20, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification due to equipment failure. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1796A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Optical without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaint and Optical responded on August 9, 2004. Optical states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Optical has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1797A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Business Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Network of the complaint and Business Network responded on September 27, 2004. Business Network has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch, as required by our rules. We find that Business Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1798A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on August 19, 2004. ALLTEL has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by ALLTEL in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1799A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC Long Distance of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on May 25, 2005. SBC Long Distance states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC Long Distance has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1800A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Momentum Telecom to ANC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANC of the complaint and ANC responded on May 26, 2005. ANC states that Complainant's telephone number was switched in error. We find that ANC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ANC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1801A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to GTC Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC Telecom of the complaint and GTC Telecom responded on May 5, 2005. GTC Telecom states that it inadvertently switched Complainant's telephone number. We find that GTC Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTC Telecom's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1802A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 9, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1803A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on April 19, 2005. Talk America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1804A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on May 19, 2005. PowerNet did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PowerNet's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on January 5, 2005. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainant's telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1806A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on December 21, 2004. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1807A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista and of the complaint and Covista responded on January 10, 2005. Covista states that Complainant telecommunications service provider was changed when Covista purchased another company's customer base and therefore, they did not use a letter of agency as required by our rules Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1808A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier states that authorizations were confirmed by a written letter of agency (LOA) signed by Complainant. Cavalier's LOAs, however, fail to confirm that the subscribers understand that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated for interstate or intraLATA toll service as required in our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1809A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Global has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Global's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1810A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to SBCLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaints and SBCLD responded. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that SBCLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1811A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on May 25, 2005. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-181A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1824A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 24, 2004. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1825A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 1, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1826A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1828A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 13, 2005. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1829A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tellis without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tellis of the complaint and Tellis responded on April 24, 2005. We find that Tellis did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-182A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1830A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on May 2, 2005. Matrix states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Matrix verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Matrix has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1831A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on March 7, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1832A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on September 28, 2004. We find that Yestel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1833A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 9, 2005. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1835A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on February 22, 2005. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1836A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on November 18, 2004. We find that Integretel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1839A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 13, 2005. SBC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-183A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom, Inc. to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on December 23, 2004. LCR states in its response that the switch occurred as the result of a clerical error on the part of its sales representative. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainant authorized carrier. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1840A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zone of the complaint and Zone responded on May 24, 2005. Zone did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Zone has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Zone's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1841A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on April 25, 2005. Acceris states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1842A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 23, 2005. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1843A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview Networks without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview Networks of the complaint and Broadview Networks responded on May 26, 2005. Broadview Networks did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview Networks has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1844A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on May 19, 2005. WilTel has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1846A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1846A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1846A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 10, 2005. Qwest did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1847A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comtech 21 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtech 21 of the complaint and Comtech 21 responded on June 6, 2005. Comtech 21 has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1848A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to West Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified West Star of the complaint and West Star responded on May 30, 2005. We find that West Star did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1849A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to XO without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified XO of the complaint and XO responded on March 2, 2005. XO states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. The copy of the LOA submitted by XO contains a list of numerous telephone numbers in a table, and the authorization to switch telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-184A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 8, 2004. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1851A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 4, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for local and intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1852A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lackawaxen without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lackawaxen of the complaint and Lackawaxen responded on June 15, 2005. Lackawaxen has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Lackawaxen in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1853A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on December l0, 2004. We find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1854A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on January 27, 2005. Business states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Business has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1855A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TNCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TNCI of the complaint and TNCI responded on anuary 3, 2005. We find that TNCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1856A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 11, 2004. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1857A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Business without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business of the complaint and Business responded on December 16, 2004. Business states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Business has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-185A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 7, 2004. Upon review of Qwest's response, we find that Qwest has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Qwest's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-186A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through letters of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1873A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on June 21, 2005. We find that Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1874A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on June 20, 2005. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that America Net has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1875A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integretel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integretel of the complaint and Integretel responded on June 7, 2005. We find that Integretel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1876A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on June 13, 2005. TCI states that Complainant service was switched due to a system error. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1877A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 14, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1878A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Trinsic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint and Trinsic responded on June 20, 2005. Trinsic states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Trinsic's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Trinsic has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1879A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on June 2, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-187A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 28, 2004. AT&T admits in its response that due to its provisioning error, the Complainant's interLATA was switched to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1880A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on June 6, 2005. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UAT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1881A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on April 19, 2005. TCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TCI's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1882A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 7, 2005. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1883A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on May 23, 2005. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1884A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on May 17, 2005. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1885A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on May 19, 2005. Comcast states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Comcast has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-188A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of letters of agency with incorrect names was beyond AT&T's control. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1891A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on January 10, 2005. BullsEye's response states that the telephone number was mistakely switched in error. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BullsEye's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1892A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 13, 2005. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1893A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Communications Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Network of the complaint and Communications Network responded on April 6, 2005. Communications Network has failed to a provide letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Communications Network has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1894A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on June 20, 2005. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1895A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Coordinated Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing of the complaint and Coordinated Billing responded on April 25, 2005. Coordinated Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Coordinated Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1896A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on January 11, 2005. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that 011 has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1897A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Cognistate to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on February 22, 2005. Primus's response, however failed to address the number that was listed on the complaint. Primus has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1898A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on February 8, 2005. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that New Rochelle has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1899A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1900A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on May 16, 2005. GTC has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch for intraLata service, as required by our rules. We find that GTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1901A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to BDP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BDP of the complaint and BDP responded on October 28, 2004. We find that BDP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1902A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Excel) to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on April 19, 2005. Excel states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received and processed. Excel's electronic LOA, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1903A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IP of the complaint and IP responded on March 14, 2005. We find that IP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-195A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-196A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on July 9, 2004. Talk America has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Talk America has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-197A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Ntelos to Business Options without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Options of the complaint and Business Options responded on March 8, 2004. Business Options states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Business Options's verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of the person authorizing the switch as required by our rules. We find that Business Options has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-198A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 26, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nationwide without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint and Nationwide responded on July 26 2004. We find that Nationwide did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-19A1.txt
  • education initiatives and the performance of intergovernmental affairs on behalf of the Commission. As part of the review process, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has reviewed all of the rules within each of the following parts that apply to ``the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service:'' Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and providers of telecommunications services to ensure that their equipment and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-200A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on April 23, 2004. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-201A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-202A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-203A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Quantumlink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quantumlink of the complaint and Quantumlink responded on April 19, 2004. Quantumlink has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Quantumlink in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-204A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-205A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications, Inc. (Primus) to SBC Long Distance (SBC-LD) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC-LD of the complaint and SBC-LD responded on March 1, 2004. In its response, reference is made to the local exchange carrier, SBC-SW, for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC-SW of the complaint and SBC-SW responded. SBC-SW states that the order for Complainant's telephone service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-206A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on June 7, 2004. Broadview has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-207A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on May 6, 2004. Spectrotel states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2089A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-208A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global (PowerNet) to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaint and Globcom responded on March 29, 2004. Globcom has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Globcom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2090A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2090A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2090A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2091A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2092A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 3, 2004. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2093A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2094A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communication Services, Inc. (ACN) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 8, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established due to a keying error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2095A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2095A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2095A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 23, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established on August 28, 2004. Sprint, however, was unable to provide an audible copy of the asserted third party verification recording. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2096A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 10, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2097A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 14, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2098A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 26, 2005. MCI admits that the Complainant's telephone number was switched inadvertently. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2099A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-209A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global Communications (PowerNet) to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on April 21, 2004. New Century states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and failed to obtain personally identifiable verification data as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2100A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI admits that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed as a result of MCI's data entry errors. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2101A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 7, 2005. MCI's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Contrary to MCI's assertion, MCI's verifier, however, did not confirm Complainant wanted to switch long distance service as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2102A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2103A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2103A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2103A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 27, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2104A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on February 1, 2005. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. We also notified Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2105A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2106A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Telecircuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecircuit of the complaint and Telecircuit responded on June 3, 2005. Telecircuit states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Telecircuit's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Telecircuit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2107A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on June 13, 2005. IDT has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by IDT in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2108A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GTC Telecom to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on April 15, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2109A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on April 14, 2005. CSP has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that CSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-210A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on July 1, 2004. Broadview states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Broadview's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2110A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALLTEL Corporation (ALLTEL) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on March 1, 2005. In its response, reference is made to Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cox, for further explanation. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on June 2, 2005. Cox states that Complainant's telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2111A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2111A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2111A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 11, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2112A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 5, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2113A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 18, 2005. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2114A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Coordinated Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing of the complaints and Coordinated Billing responded. Coordinated Billing states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Coordinated Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2115A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 10, 2005. Qwest has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2116A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on April 28, 2005. We find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2117A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 22, 2005. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2118A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Opticom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opticom of the complaint and Opticom responded on July 5, 2005. We find that Opticom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2119A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BSLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSLD of the complaint and BSLD responded on May 16, 2005. BSLD states that authorization was received and confirmed as a result of an e-mail from the controller of Complainant's employer authorizing a second telephone number to be added to the employer's account earlier established via a letter of agency (LOA). BSLD has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-211A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on June 30, 2004. We find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2120A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on April 22, 2005. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2121A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ETS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ETS of the complaint and ETS responded on June 21, 2005. ETS has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2122A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on May 23, 2005. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2123A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 9, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain a separate authorization for local and intraLATA service, as required by our rules. Cordia's verifier also marketed voice mail service to the Complainant, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2124A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 3, 2005. ACN states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. The LOA submitted by ACN was illegible and was not sufficient to show compliance with our rules. We find that ACN has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2125A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on April 28, 2005. ACN states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2126A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on June 30, 2005. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2127A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on July 1, 2005. New Rochelle states that, due to a data entry error, Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly switched. We find that New Rochelle has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that New
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2128A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications Corp. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 24, 2005. In its response, Qwest states that Complainant's service was switched by the local exchange carrier. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified the local exchange carrier, Access One Incorporated (Access), of the complaint and Access responded. Access states
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2129A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on March 16, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-212A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on August 12, 2004. Complainant's bill has been fully absolved of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2130A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on June 21, 2005. SBCLD states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. SBCLD's LOA, however, does not contain the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. The attached list of numbers sent by SBCLD with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2131A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on April 11, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that TeleDias has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2132A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on February 22, 2005. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Quasar's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization to change Complainant's intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2133A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QiTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QiTel of the complaint and QiTel responded on June 17, 2005. QiTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that QiTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2134A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 21, 2005. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2135A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 22, 2005. Qwest, which is also Complainant's local carrier, states that it received a carrier-initiated order from Complainant's preferred long distance carrier on January 13, 2005. Qwest, however, did not process the switch until March 15, 2005. We find that Qwest has caused an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2136A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 12, 2005. Excel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2137A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on February 25, 2005. We find that VLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2138A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Orbit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Orbit of the complaint and Orbit responded on June 16, 2005. Orbit's response contained information from an internet letter of agency (LOA). Orbit, however, did not include the internet LOA itself, as required by our rules. We find that Orbit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2139A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on November 15, 2004. SBC states that it sent a request to change Complainant's telephone numbers in error. We find that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-213A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on March 31, 2004. LCR did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that LCR has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LCR's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2140A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Based on information obtained from Excel and each Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Excel has not violated our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on January 3, 2005. We find that Lightyear did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2142A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 1, 2005. ACN did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on August 13, 2004. VarTec has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by VarTec in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2144A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Lifeline Communications to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on July 2, 2004. Z-Tel did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Z-Tel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Z-Tel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2145A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 20, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2146A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 1, 2005. ACN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2147A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on July 11, 2005. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2148A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on July 12, 2005. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2149A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on July 5, 2005. BellSouth has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that BellSouth has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-214A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on August 2, 2004. Upon review of BellSouth's response, we find that BellSouth has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. We find that BellSouth has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2150A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista and of the complaint and Covista responded on May 19, 2005. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2151A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 25, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2152A1.txt
  • should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from SBC (local service) and AT&T (long distance service) to TRINSIC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TRINSIC of the complaint and TRINSIC responded on June 16, 2005. TRINSIC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that TRINSIC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2153A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TRINSIC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TRINSIC of the complaint and TRINSIC responded on June 20, 2005. TRINSIC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that TRINSIC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2154A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 20, 2005. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2155A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on June 2, 2005. Startec states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2156A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2157A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GTC Telecom (GTC) to SBC Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Southwestern Bell) of the complaint and SBC Long Distance responded on behalf of Southwestern Bell on May 25, 2005. SBC Long Distance states that SBC Missouri (an SBC Long Distance affiliate) switched Complainant's interLATA and intraLATA service to SBC Long Distance in September, 2004, but that a third party
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2158A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 4, 2005. Cordia states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for local and intraLATA service, as required by our rules. In addition, Cordia's verifier marketed voicemail service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2159A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TNC1 to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 21, 2005. In its response AT&T states that no orders were placed for its services. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.l150 of our rules, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier, CenturyTel, of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on May 17, 2005. CenturyTel admits that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-215A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to WorldxChange without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldxChange of the complaint and WorldxChange responded on September 8, 2004. We find that WorldxChange did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2160A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 12, 2005. Silv states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Silv's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2161A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 4, 2005. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 18, 2005. Verizon admits an error occurred when the Complainant requested a change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2162A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Cavalier has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2163A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from McLeod to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 13, 2004. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2164A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on April 18, 2005. We find that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2165A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 1, 2005. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency as proof of authorization for the switch. However, the letter of agency submitted by AT&T is not legible as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2166A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2167A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 27, 2004. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2168A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2169A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-216A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 29, 2004. We find that MCI has not violated our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2170A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 13, 2005. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2171A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 9, 2005. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2172A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 18, 2005. AT&T states that although a third party verification (TPV) recording was made as proof of the authorization, it is unable to provide the TPV, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-217A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 29, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2180A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 9, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2181A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from GTC to Custom Teleconnect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Custom Teleconnect of the complaint and Custom Teleconnect responded on June 13, 2005. We find that Custom Teleconnect did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2182A1.txt
  • Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We first notified MCI of the complaint, and MCI responded on November 29, 2004. Based on MCI's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cognigen of the complaint and Cognigen responded on June 20, 2005. Cognigen has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Cognigen has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-218A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Global has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Global's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-219A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaints and Bullseye responded. Bullseye states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Bullseye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Bullseye's. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-220A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaint alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CBS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaints and CBS responded CBS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. CBS's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the change of intraLATA service. We find that CBS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-221A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' intraLATA service had been changed from their authorized carriers to TeleUno without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainants wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-222A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-223A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-224A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-225A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Verizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon is the local exchange carrier (LEC) of the Complainants. Verizon's responses state that it delayed its processing of service requests by Complainants. The LEC caused unreasonable delay in executing the switch for the Complainants. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in a violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-226A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 29, 2004. Comcast states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Comcast has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-227A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldxchange Corp. to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on July 8, 2004. Acceris states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Acceris has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-228A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Global Connect to NUS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NUS of the complaint and NUS responded on May 12, 2004. We find that NUS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-229A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-230A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2310A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on July 14, 2005. 011 states that it inadvertently switched Complainant's service back to 011 after Complainant earlier had changed from 011 to another carrier. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2311A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 26, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and authorized through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for local and intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2312A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 26, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and authorized through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for local and intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2313A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 9, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-231A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to TelUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TelUno of the complaint and TelUno responded on May 28, 2004. We find that TelUno did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2321A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on May 31, 2005. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2322A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 18, 2005. CTS states that authorization was obtained by a signed letter of agency. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2323A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on June 9, 2005. Talk America states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification (TPV). We find that Talk America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2324A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on July 6, 2005. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Cavalier's LOA failed to state that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA carrier. We find that Cavalier has not produced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2325A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on July 18, 2005. CTS states that authorization was obtained by a signed letter of agency (LOA). We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the LOA gave an incorrect
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2326A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on June 17, 2005. Talk America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). When the person on the TPV recording was asked by the verifier whether she was ``over 18 years of age and the person of record with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2328A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Telecircuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecircuit of the complaint and Telecircuit responded on June 24, 2005. Telecircuit states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Telecircuit's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Telecircuit has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2329A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizont to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on June 21, 2005. SBC states that authorization was obtained via a letter of agency (LOA), but that the person signing the LOA listed Complainant's telephone numbers in error. Upon review of SBC's response, we find that SBC has complied with the verification requirements of Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-232A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 31, 2004. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that IDT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2330A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 12, 2005. Cordia states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for local and intraLATA service, as required by our rules. Cordia's verifier also marketed voicemail service to the complainant in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2331A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to IP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IP of the complaint and IP responded on January 25, 2005. IP states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. IP's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that IP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-233A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 7, 2004. Qwest states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. Qwest sale's representative, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2341A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 1, 2004. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Verizon's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch for intaLATA and long distance service, and failed to obtain oral authorization to switch all services as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2342A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 27, 2004. Broadview has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Broadview in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2343A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-234A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-235A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaints and Excel responded. Excel states that the Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed when letters of authorization were signed and processed. Excel, however, did not obtain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2369A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2369A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2369A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 13, 2005. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to SBCLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaints and SBCLD responded. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that SBCLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2370A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI admits that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed as a result MCI's data entry errors. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2371A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2371A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2371A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2372A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 24, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2373A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-238A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 6, 2004. Complainant's bill has been fully absolved of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-240A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaints and VZLD responded. VZLD states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that VZLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that VZLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-247A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 3, 2004. Sprint has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-248A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on March 30, 2004. IDT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. IDT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-249A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 20, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-250A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 1, 2004. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-251A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 13, 2004. MCI's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, did not confirm complainant wanted to switch intralata service as required by our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-252A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 03, 2004. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-253A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to OneStar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneStar of the complaint and OneStar responded on April 5, 2004. We find that OneStar did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2547A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on September 2, 2005. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that CBS actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2548A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Covista Communications (Covista) to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on June 20, 2005. U.S. Telecom states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. U.S. Telecom's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2549A1.txt
  • March 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on March 23, 2005, and Sprint responded on April 28, 2005. In its response, Sprint states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 2, 2005. Qwest admits that it mistakenly changed Complainant's long distance service to Sprint. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-254A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Asian American without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Asian American of the complaint and Asian American responded on May 27, 2004. Asian American states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Asian American's verification, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Asian American has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2551A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCN of the complaint and UCN responded on July 21, 2005. UCN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UCN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UCN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2552A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on May 25, 2005. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2553A1.txt
  • June 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on June 23, 2005, and Sprint responded on July 18, 2005. In its response, Sprint states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Ameritech. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Ameritech of the complaint and Ameritech responded on August 15, 2005. Ameritech admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to Sprint. We find that Ameritech has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Ameritech's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2554A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on June 1, 2005. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain Complainant's telephone number, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2555A1.txt
  • 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AmericanFone to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served MCI on March 18, 2005, and MCI responded on May 25, 2005. In its response, MCI states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on July 5, 2005. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to MCI. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2556A1.txt
  • complaint on January 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on March 18, 2005. Sprint responded on April 15, 2005. In its response Sprint states the switch was made based on information it received from Complainant's contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on July 5, 2005. Verizon admits that, due to its processing error, Complainant's service was not switched to Complainant's authorized provider until more than two months after Complainant requested the switch. We therefore find that Verizon has caused an unreasonable delay in the execution of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2557A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on August 11, 2005. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. New Rochelle's verifier, however, marketed voicemail service in violation of our rules. We find that New Rochelle has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2558A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Hello Depot without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hello Depot of the complaint and Hello Depot responded on July 25, 2005. Hello Depot did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Hello Depot has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2559A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-255A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 21, 2004. Verizon's response states that Complainant's telephone service was switched without a third party verification or letter of agency due to the complainant mistakenly being treated as a new install of service and not a switch of service. Verizon has failed to provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2560A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on July 13, 2005. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Rochelle's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that New Rochelle has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2561A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing Communications, LLC (Broadwing) to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 31, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2562A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primo Communications (Primo) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 4, 2005. Sprint states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm telephone the number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2563A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZWW-ISP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZWW-ISP of the complaint and ZWW-ISP responded on August 2, 2005. We find that ZWW-ISP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2564A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2565A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2565A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2565A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 1, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2566A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2566A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2566A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2567A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on June 7, 2005. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2568A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2568A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2568A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 20, 2005. MCI stated that it received an order from Cypress Communications, Inc. (Cypress) indicating that Complainant's telephone number was selected to its network and not MCI. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cypress of the complaint and Cypress
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2569A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed or through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2570A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on September 8, 2005. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2571A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on June 17, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of TeleDias on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2572A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were illegible and Sprint was unable to provide clear copies. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2573A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2573A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2573A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PCS1 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PCS1 of the complaint and PCS1 responded on August 25, 2005. PCS1 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PCS1 verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that PCS1 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2574A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2574A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2574A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2575A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2575A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2575A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on August 25, 2005. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm if Complainant wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2576A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2576A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2576A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 27, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established on January 5, 2005. Sprint, however, was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter or any other verification for this account. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2577A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2577A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2577A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 29, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2578A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2578A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2578A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on August 24, 2005. Sage states that it entered Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2580A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on June 29, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, marketed voicemail service in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2581A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 25, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2582A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on June 2, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). There is no mention of TeleDias on the TPV recording, and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted via Commission auspices, confirms that the name of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2583A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 8, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2584A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 23, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2586A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2587A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 15, 2005. Qwest states the account was initiated per a request from Legent Communications Corporation (Legent). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Legent of the complaint and Legent responded on July 15, 2005. Legent states that it provides wholesale
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2588A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI admits that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed as a result of MCI's typographical errors. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2589A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to World-Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified World-Link of the complaint and World-Link responded on July 29, 2005. World-Link states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to a clerical error by its sales representative. We find that World-Link has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that World-Link's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2590A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2591A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on September 2, 2005. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Preferred Billing actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2592A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI admits that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed as a result of its typographical error. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carriers change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2593A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on August 4, 2005. SBCLD states that SBC Illinois (which is an affiliate of SBCLD) issued a service order changing Complainant's service provider to SBCLD, but that Complainant's telephone number was switched in error. We find that SBC Illinois has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2595A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 22, 2004. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2596A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on May 16, 2005. BullsEye admits that Complainant's service was mistakenly switched back to its network. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BullsEye's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2597A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Upon review of MCI's responses, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of MCI. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2598A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on April 4, 2005. We find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2599A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed as a result of other MCI customers inadvertently providing Complainants' telephone numbers as one of the numbers authorized to be switched. MCI, however, was unable to provide signed letters of agency or third party verifications from those
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2600A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CTS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. CTS states that authorizations were received when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Upon review of CTS's responses, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2601A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on July 22, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of TeleDias on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2602A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 15, 2005. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2603A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 26, 2004. MCI states that it switched Complaint's service per a notice it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) indicating that MCI was chosen as the long distance and local toll service provider. The LEC, however, only submitted to MCI a Transaction Code
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2604A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on August 12, 2005. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Preferred Billing's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2605A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on July 28, 2005. We find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2606A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BBG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BBG of the complaint and BBG responded on August 11, 2005. We find that BBG did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that BBG's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2607A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on August 24, 2005. We find that Opex did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted did not unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2608A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 31, 2005. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2609A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 10, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2610A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Navicomm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Navicomm of the complaint and Navicomm responded on September 15, 2005. We find that Navicomm did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Navicomm's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2611A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on June 13, 2005. Opex states that it switched Complainant's telephone number in error. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Opex's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2612A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on July 26, 2005. Universal, however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Universal's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2613A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Startec without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaints and Startec responded. Startec indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In each case, Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2614A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Spectrotel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In each case, Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2615A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. Cordia's verifier, marketed voice mail services in violation of our rules, and failed to obtain separate authorizations for local and intraLATA as required by our rules. Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2616A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints and LDC responded. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that LDC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2617A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to New Rochelle without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaints and New Rochelle responded. New Rochelle indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). In each case, however, New Rochelle's verifier marketed voicemail service, in violation our rules. New Rochelle has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier changes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2618A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on July 11, 2005. Acceris states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. Acceris's LOA, however failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's preferred intraLATA preferred carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2619A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 15, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2620A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telecom*USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom*USA of the complaint and MCI, on behalf of its subsidiary, Telecom*USA, responded on November 30, 2004. We find that Telecom*USA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2621A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cox Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 20, 2005. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2622A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NRTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NRTC of the complaint and NRTC responded on July 13, 2005. NRTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NRTC's verifier, however, marketed voicemail service in violation of our rules. We find that NRTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2623A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Telecom*USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom*USA of the complaint and MCI, on behalf of Telecom*USA, responded on June 29, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received by Telecom*USA and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Telecom*USA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2624A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to HelloCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified HelloCom of the complaint and HelloCom responded on August 1, 2005. HelloCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. HelloCom's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that HelloCom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2625A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on July 15, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2626A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance (ALD) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 25, 2005. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. However, the LOA submitted by AT&T is not legible as required by our rules. As a result we requested AT&T to submit an LOA with legible language.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2627A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2628A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 22, 2004. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2629A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2629A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2629A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2630A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2631A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 3, 2005. There were two switches to Talk, the latter one occurring in February, 2005. Talk did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency for the second switch (i.e., February, 2005,) in Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2632A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 11, 2005. Verizon states that, although it received Complainant's request to change to another carrier on February 27, 2004, Verizon failed to issue the change request order until Complainant made a second request for a change on May 19, 2005. We find that Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2764A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaint and TDS responded on April 27, 2005. We find that TDS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2765A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on March 17, 2005. Pioneer states that it switched Complainant's service in error. We find that Pioneer has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Pioneer's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2766A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to New Rochelle without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaints and New Rochelle responded. New Rochelle states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, however, New Rochelle's verifier marketed voicemail service, in violation of our rules. We find that New Rochelle has not produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2767A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2768A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, which included Sprint submitting third party verification (TPV) recordings, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each TPV recording gave an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2769A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on August 26, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sepctrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2770A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2771A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changeS of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in unauthorized changeS in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2772A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2773A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Upon review of AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. In each case, the fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of AT&T.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2775A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2776A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 1, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2777A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 31, 2005. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2780A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 13, 2005. ACN states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions did not result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2781A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 10, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2782A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communication Service Inc. to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 25, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2783A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 9, 2005. ACN states that it received authorization via a letter of agency (LOA) completed by Complainant, a copy of which ACN has provided. The record in this proceeding, however, demonstrates that there were two different switches of service to ACN. The first switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2786A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ANC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANC of the complaint and ANC responded on January 10, 2005. ANC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2787A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on September 30, 2005. Upon review of BNLD's response, we find that BNLD has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2788A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on October 17, 2005. LDC's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 17, 2005. Cavalier states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Cavalier has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2790A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon change TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on April 27, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of TeleDias on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2791A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Reduced without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced of the complaint and Reduced responded on October 4, 2005. Reduced states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Reduced has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Reduced's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2792A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth change OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on July 22, 2005. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of OneLink on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2793A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Communications to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on September 1, 2005. PowerNet did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PowerNet's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2794A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on September 6, 2005. PowerNet states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. PowerNet's verifier, however, failed to obtain personally identifiable information as required by our rules. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2795A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on October 6, 2005. Global states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Global's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold, as required by our rules. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2797A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CBS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaints and CBS responded. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that CBS's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2798A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on September 7, 2005. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that America Net has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that America Net actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2799A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2005. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Primus's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2800A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ETS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ETS of the complaint and ETS responded on October 1, 2005. We find that ETS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2801A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 3, 2005. Cavalier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2802A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Eurocom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Eurocom of the complaint on June 8, 2005. Eurocom has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Eurocom to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Eurocom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2803A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on September 30, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that Spectrotel has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2804A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on September 20, 2005. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Preferred Billing's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 30, 2005. Talk did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2806A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on July 29, 2005. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cox's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainant wanted to switch its intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2807A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on September 26, 2005. PNG did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that PNG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2808A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 21, 2005. Qwest states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Qwest actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2809A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on September 26, 2005. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2810A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on September 2, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Spectrotel's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2811A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on August 1, 2005. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Clearworld actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2812A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorization were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2813A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on July 26, 2005. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2814A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on October 6, 2005. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's automated verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2823A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 3, 2005. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2841A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on September 23, 2005. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name was beyond the control of CTS. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2842A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Convergia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Convergia of the complaint and Convergia responded on July 29, 2005. Convergia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of Convergia on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2844A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on May 9, 2005. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-2845A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TRINSIC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TRINSIC of the complaint and TRINSIC responded on September 12, 2005. TRINSIC states that it mistakenly switched complainant's service to TRINSIC when it purchased the customer base from another carrier. TRINSIC has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3040A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3042A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3043A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 20, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3044A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaints and Sage responded. Sage states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sage has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3045A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on August 16, 2005. We find that NECC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3046A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 3, 2005. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3047A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on October 6, 2005. ACN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3048A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Bell South to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on June 3, 2005. Talk America has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Talk America in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3049A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on August 19, 2005. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Sage's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3050A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on May 23, 2005. Cavalier has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Cavalier in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3051A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to STS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified STS of the complaint and STS responded on October 26, 2005. STS has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that STS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3052A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaints on April 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TTI National, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on October 28, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3053A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Working Assets without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Working Assets of the complaint and Working Assets responded on May 16, 2005. Working Assets states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Working Assets's LOA failed to confirm that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee will apply to the change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3055A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on May 31, 2005. TeleUno states that it mistakenly switched complainant's service during a change in underlying carrier. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3056A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaints on April 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on September 29, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3057A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 19, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3058A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on May 31, 2005. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3067A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 26, 2005. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3068A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on October 6, 2005. We find that NET has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that NET's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3069A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on October 6, 2005. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3070A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2005 alleging that Complainant's long distance service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 29, 2005. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3071A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 22, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3074A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 24, 2005. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Upon review of IDT's response, we find that IDT has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3075A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on October 27, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3076A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on October 19, 2005. We find that SBC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3077A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 24, 2005. Talk has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Talk in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3078A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PAETEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PAETEC of the complaint and PAETEC responded on July 8, 2005. PAETEC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that PAETEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PAETEC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3079A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on February 25, 2005. Excel admits that they received a request to establish service for another consumer and not the Complainant. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3080A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3080A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3080A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on September 1, 2005. Verizon has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Verizon in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3081A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 25, 2005. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3082A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on October 27, 2005. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3083A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on October 11, 2005. Buzz states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Buzz has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Buzz's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3084A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on October 26, 2005. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3085A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on October 19, 2005. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3086A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AireSpring without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AireSpring of the complaint and AireSpring responded on October 26, 2005. AireSpring admits that it made an error which resulted in Complainant's telephone number being mistakenly switched. We find that AireSpring has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AireSpring's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3087A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on November 8, 2005. NET did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NET has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NET's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3096A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3096A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3096A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint has failed to provide third party verifications or letters of authorization for any of the Complainants involved in the above captioned cases. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3097A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 25, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3098A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3098A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3098A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 21, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3099A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3099A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3099A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3100A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 27, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3109A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3109A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3109A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 13, 2005. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3112A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 23, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3113A1.txt
  • received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadwing to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T on May 13, 2005. AT&T responded on July 5, 2005. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 19, 2005. Verizon's response states that it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant by two years and ten months. We find that Verizon caused an unreasonable delay in executing the switch for the Complainant, in violation of our rules. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3116A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on January 11, 2005. Covista asserts that Complainant's account was purchased from Complainant's prior carrier and that the Complainant was given 30 days written notice before it acquired Complainant's account. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3257A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 23, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3258A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on June 30, 2005. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Sage's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3259A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 23, 2005. Sprint states that Complainant's service was on one of its reseller's account, Legent Communications Corporation d/b/a Long Distance Services (LDS). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on November 7, 2005.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3260A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 13, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3261A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on September 2, 2005. We find that VLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3262A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on September 16, 2005. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3263A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALL of the complaint and ALL responded on November 4, 2005. ALL admits that Complainant's telephone number was added to its database in error. We find that ALL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ALL's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3265A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 26, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3266A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTT of the complaint and GTT responded on November 23, 2005. GTT states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. GTT's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that GTT has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3267A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global Touch of the complaint and Global Touch responded on November 18, 2005. Global Touch admits that Complainant's telephone number was keyed incorrectly into its system. We find that Global Touch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global Touch's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3294A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 11, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3295A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on November 9, 2005. LDC states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3296A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Century of the complaints and Century responded. We find that Century did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3297A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2005, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on November 17, 2005. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sage's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Sage
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3298A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on June 28, 2005. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). A review of the TPV, however, reveals that there is no mention of NCT on the TPV recording and a review of the written translation of the TPV, conducted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3299A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3300A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 17, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3301A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Globcom Telecommunications (Globcom) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 21, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for interLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3302A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 16 2005. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3303A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 16, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3304A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3305A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on November 1, 2005. Matrix states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Matrix's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Matrix has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3306A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3307A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Cable (Cox) to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on November 8, 2005. ALLTEL has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that ALLTEL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3308A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 5, 2005. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave the incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3309A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 10, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3310A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to World-Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified World-Link of the complaint and World-Link responded on November 4, 2005. World-Link states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. World-Link's verifier, however, failed to the confirm telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that World-Link has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3311A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on November 21, 2005. Pioneer states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received and processed. Pioneer's LOA, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Pioneer has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3321A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on December 2, 2005. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Talk's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3322A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on November 9, 2005. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that LDC actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3323A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 1, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3324A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ACN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-360A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on August 20, 2004. NALD states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-361A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from (authorized carrier) to (unauthorized carrier) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on (date of carrier response). IDT. has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-364A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to DTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified DTS of the complaint and DTS responded on August 16, 2004. We find that DTS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-365A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lucky Dog without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lucky Dog of the complaint and Lucky Dog responded on July 1, 2004. We find that Lucky Dog did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-366A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Citizens Communications without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Citizens Communications of the complaint and Citizens Communications responded on July 13, 2004. Citizens Communications has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-367A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-367A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-367A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on July 20, 2004. Clearworld did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Clearworld's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-368A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-368A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-368A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 18, 2004. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Silv's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-377A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Forte Communications, Inc. (Forte) to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on November 3, 2004. Sage states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to an order entry error. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the Sage's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-378A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WilTel Communications to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 29, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-379A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on April 16, 2004. BullsEye states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BullsEye's verification, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-380A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Least Cost without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Least Cost of the complaint and Least Cost responded on November 5, 2004. We find that Least Cost did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-381A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on July 1, 2004. We find that VarTec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-396A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-397A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-398A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 24, 2004. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-401A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Talk states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-402A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-403A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on March 1, 2004. IDT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The person on the call was asked both, if he was ``at least 18 years old authorized to make the switch.'' He responded only by saying ``yes, I am thirty years
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-404A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in CTS's receipt of letters of agency with incorrect names was beyond the control of CTS. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-405A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. Primus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-406A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Optical without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaints and Optical responded. Optical has failed to respond to the Complaints. The failure of Optical to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Optical's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-407A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 19, 2004. Qwest did not submit a third party verification or Letter ofAgency. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-408A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on June 1, 2004. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Quasar's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainant wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-410A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 14, 2004. Excel states that the account was established due to a data entry error. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-550A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification or a signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-552A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Americatel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaints and Americatel responded. Americatel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Americatel has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-554A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Americatel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaints and Americatel responded Americatel states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Americatel's verifier, however, failed to confirm the number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-555A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-557A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-558A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-559A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 9, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-560A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-562A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-564A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-567A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-569A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-569A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-569A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-570A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-571A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-571A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-571A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-572A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-572A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-572A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-582A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-583A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-584A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Spectrotel's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-585A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-586A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-588A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-589A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-589A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-589A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-590A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-590A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-590A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-591A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-592A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-774A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on September 28, 2004. ACN states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-775A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on September 16, 2004. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. ATS verifier, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-776A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on October 4, 2004. GTC states that it inadvertently switched Complainant's service back to GTC. We find that GTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-777A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Communications Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaints and Communications Billing responded. Communications Billing did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Communications Billing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Communications Billing's actions resulted in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-778A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MTI of the complaint and MTI responded on September 20, 2004. MTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. MTI's automated representative, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that MTI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-779A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on October 27, 2004. Broadwing states that Complainant's service was switched due to a typographical error. We find that Broadwing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-780A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCPB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCPB of the complaint and TCPB responded on October 5, 2004. TCPB did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCPB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCPB's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-781A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on February 9, 2005. UTI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UTI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-782A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on February 2, 2005. GTC states that it advertently switched Complainant's service. We find that GTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-783A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on February 2, 2005. PNG did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that PNG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-784A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CNB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaint and CNB responded on January 25, 2005. CNB did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CNB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CNB's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on September 3, 2004. Covista did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-786A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 17, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. CTS's LOA, however, does contain a complete date by the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that CTS has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-787A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on October 26, 2004. Advantage did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-788A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 15, 2004. Broadview states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Broadview's LOA, however, failed to inform the subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber carrier for each service for any one telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 1, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Upon review of CTS's response, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-790A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on March 8, 2005. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that SBCLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-791A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 15, 2004. IDT states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. IDT's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-792A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on October 18, 2004. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. U.S. Telecom's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-793A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Discount Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount Plus of the complaint and Discount Plus responded on August 4, 2004. Discount Plus states that Complainant's service was authorized through a third party verifier. We find that Discount Plus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-794A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ChoiceOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ChoiceOne of the complaint and ChoiceOne responded on September 8, 2004. ChoiceOne states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. ChoiceOne's LOA, however, failed to inform the subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's intraLATA toll carrier, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-795A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaints and ATS responded on August 10, 2004. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-796A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaints and Cox responded on August 16, 2004. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-797A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on July 26, 2004. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-798A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 15, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-799A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to TCPB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCPB of the complaint and TCPB responded on July 28, 2004. TCPB states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TCPB's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that TCPB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-800A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on July 20, 2004. We find that TeleUno did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-801A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 18, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Excel's LOA, however, failed to confirm whether the subscriber designated Excel to act as the subscriber's agent for the change as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-802A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 9, 2004. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-803A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded March 30, 2004. We find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-804A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on October 12, 2004. IDT states that the Complainant's telephone service improperly switched due to a processing error. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the IDT's actions resulted in authorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-805A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded May 21, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Excel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-806A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Advantage without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded. Advantage states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-807A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telliss without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telliss of the complaint and Telliss responded on August 23, 2004. We find that Telliss did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-808A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on August 19, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name to the third party verifier was beyond the control of Excel. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-809A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USTEL of the complaint and USTEL responded on August 18, 2004. USTEL states that Complainant's service was authorized through a third party verifier. We find that USTEL has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-810A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LightWave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LightWave of the complaint and LightWave responded on July 30, 2004. LightWave states that Complainant's service was authorized through a third party verifier. We find that LightWave has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-811A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on January 14, 2005. Comcast states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Comcast has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-812A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to USTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified USTEL of the complaint and USTEL responded on September 9, 2004. USTEL states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that USTEL has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-813A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on August 10, 2004. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Sage sale's representative, however, failed to confirm if the Complainant wanted to switch their intraLATA service, as required by our rules. We find that Sage has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-814A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALLTEL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ALLTEL of the complaint and ALLTEL responded on July 23, 2004. ALLTEL states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error. We find that ALLTEL has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ALLTEL's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-815A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Z-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Z-Tel of the complaint and Z-Tel responded on January 28, 2005. Z-Tel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Z-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-816A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Fonetel to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on January 25, 2005. Talk states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-817A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Discount Plus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discount Plus of the complaint and Discount Plus responded on February 1, 2005. Discount Plus states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Discount Plus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-819A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on August 20, 2004. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-820A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 3, 2004. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-821A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on December 8, 2004. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. 011's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that 011 has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-822A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to INETBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified INETBA of the complaint and INETBA responded on October 19, 2004. INETBA states that Complainant's service was inadvertently switched. We find that INETBA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that INETBA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-823A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Uni-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Uni-Tel of the complaint and Uni-Tel responded on November 22, 2005. Uni-Tel states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Uni-Tel's LOA, however, fails to confirm that the subscriber designates Uni-Tel to act as the subscriber's agent for the change, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-824A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTC of the complaint and PTC responded on October 25, 2004. PTC states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. PTC's LOA, however, did not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that PTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-825A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CTS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaints and CTS responded. CTS states that authorizations were received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Upon review of CTS's responses, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-826A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 16, 2004. IDT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that IDT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-827A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTLC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTLC of the complaint and GTLC responded on August 16, 2004. We find that GTLC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-828A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QuantumLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QuantumLink of the complaint and QuantumLink responded on November 9, 2004. QuantumLink states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that QuantumLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that QuantumLink's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-829A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to APS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified APS of the complaint and APS responded on July 14, 2004. APS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. APS's sales representative, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that APS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-830A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on January 31, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Upon review of CTS's response, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-831A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 27, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Upon review of Excel's response, we find that Excel has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-832A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Curry without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Curry of the complaint and Curry responded on January 10, 2005. Curry did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Curry has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Curry's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-833A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on October 4, 2004. We find that Covista did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-834A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Communications Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaint and Communications Billing responded on August 13, 2004. Communications Billing did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Communications Billing has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-835A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CNB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaint and CNB responded on September 17, 2004. CNB did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CNB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CNB's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-836A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on January 25, 2005. Broadview states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. We find that Broadview has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-837A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tel West without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tel West of the complaint and Tel West responded on September 16, 2004. Tel West states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. We find that Tel West has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-838A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to DTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified DTS of the complaint and DTS responded on September 27, 2004. We find that DTS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-839A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telliss without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telliss of the complaint and Telliss responded on September 27, 2004. We find that Telliss did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-840A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-840A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-840A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on December 8, 2004. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-841A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-841A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-841A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to National Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified National Access of the complaint and National Access responded on July 15, 2004. National Access states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to a clerical error by its sales representative. We find that National Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-842A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-842A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-842A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 5, 2004. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-843A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-843A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-843A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on September 27, 2004. CTS states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-844A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-844A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-844A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 15, 2004. Excel states that authorization was received when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was received and processed. Excel's LOA, however, failed to confirm whether the subscriber designated Excel to act as subscriber's agent for the change, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-845A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-845A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-845A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Local Biz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Local Biz of the complaint and Local Biz responded on December 1, 2004. We find that Local Biz did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-847A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-847A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-847A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and Telecom USA responded on September 3, 2004. Telecom USA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Telecom USA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-848A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that on July 13, 2004, Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and Telecom USA responded on August 17, 2004. Telecom USA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Telecom USA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-849A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 31, 2004. IDT has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by IDT in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-850A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to AirNex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AirNex of the complaint and AirNex responded on August 3, 2004. AirNex has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that AirNex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-851A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaints and Advantage responded on October 5, 2004. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Advantage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-852A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 27, 2004. Silv states the authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-853A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to CGI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CGI of the complaint and CGI responded on October 26, 2004. CGI's response states that Complainant's telephone service was switched per a verbal request from an existing customer. CGI has failed to provide a third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of complainant's service as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-854A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Promisevision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Promisevision of the complaint and Promisevision responded on July 30, 2004. Promisevision states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Promisevision's verification, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Promisevision has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-855A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Gold Line to Total Call without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Total Call of the complaint and Total Call responded on July 26, 2004. Total Call has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Total Call has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-856A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on July 22, 2004. Advantage states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-857A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on July 6, 2004. TeleUno states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleUno's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-858A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-859A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letters of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-860A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of Sprint. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-861A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-862A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-863A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-863A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-863A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-864A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-865A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-866A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-867A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-868A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-869A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 20, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, did not confirm that Complainant wanted to switch intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-870A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Long Distance (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 4, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-871A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from None to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 4, 2005. Sprint states that the account was established on November 12, 2003. Sprint, however, further states it was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter of agency or third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-872A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-873A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-874A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications or signed letter of agency. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-875A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 11, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). During the TPV, the person on the line corrected the telephone number to be switched. Sprint, however, did not switch the corrected telephone number. We find that Sprint has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-876A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that Complainants' services were switched because of a processing error made by a Sprint representative. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-877A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 11, 2005. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was added to the account of a Sprint business customer in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-878A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through signed letters of agency (LOAs). Sprint's LOAs, however, were not dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-879A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 21, 2004. MCI states that Complainant's service was switched due to a request from a MCI commercial customer. MCI, however, was unable to locate a recorded copy of a third party verification or a copy of a signed letter of agency. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-880A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 27, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI's verifier, however, failed to obtain authorization for switching long distance services for the Complainant's secondary telephone number. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-881A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 2, 2005. MCI states that the account was established as a result of its data entry error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-882A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Adelphia Long Distance (Adelphia) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 10, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). MCI, however, was unable to locate a copy of the TPV. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-883A1.txt
  • received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served MCI on June 11, 2004. MCI responded on August 17, 2004. In its response, MCI states that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Conestoga. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Conestoga of the complaint and Conestoga responded on December 16, 2004. Conestoga admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to MCI due to its clerical error. We find that Conestoga has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Conestoga's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-884A1.txt
  • We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint LD) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint LD on July 9, 2004. Sprint LD responded on August 27, 2004. In their response the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 28, 2004. Sprint admits that the switch in Complainant's long distance service was due to a error in the local switch. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-885A1.txt
  • on August 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from USP Communications (USP) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on October 29, 2004. Sprint responded on November 12, 2004. In its response Sprint states that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 25, 2005. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to Sprint due to Verizon's clerical error. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-887A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Comcast to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 26, 2005. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Comcast. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on February 25, 2005. Comcast admits
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-888A1.doc
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 13, 2005. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1130 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in AT&T's receipt of a letter of agency with an incorrect name
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-889A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 20, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded. Verizon states that due to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-890A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 16, 2004. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. AT&T's verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch of intraLATA service as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-891A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 1, 2004. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-892A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-893A1.txt
  • received Complainant's complaint on August 18, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T Communications (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T on September 3, 2004. AT&T responded on September 20, 2004. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier Qwest. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 2, 2005. Qwest's response states that it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant by six months. We find that Qwest caused an unreasonable delay in executing the switch for the Complainant, in violation of our rules. We find that Qwest has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-894A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell (SBC) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 29, 2004. AT&T admits in its response that due to its provisioning error, Complainant's interLATA and intraLATA were switched to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-895A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from McLeod USA to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 13, 2005. AT&T states in its response that due to a data retrieval problem it could not submit an electronic letter of agency. AT&T has failed to provide a letter of agency recording as proof of the authorization of the switch as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-896A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Worldcom to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on May 28, 2004. We find that LCR did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-897A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. Primus has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Primus in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-898A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaints and VarTec responded. VarTec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that VarTec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that VarTec's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-899A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on October 4, 2004. We find that Spectrotel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-900A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 15, 2004. Complainant's bill has been fully absolved of all charges in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-901A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on June 2, 2004. Upon review of Americatel response, we find that Americatel has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. We find that Americatel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-902A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 28, 2004. Excel did not submit a third party verification recording or a letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-903A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 16, 2004. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cavalier's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-904A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on September 9, 2004. Lightyear has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Lightyear in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-905A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to US Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified US Connect of the complaint and US Connect responded on July 20, 2004. We find that US Connect did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-906A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. Primus has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Primus in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-907A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Acceris without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaints and Acceris responded. Acceris indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-908A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to OneLink without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-909A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainants. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-910A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on October 1, 2004. Excel states that Complainant's telephone number was switched due to a data entry error. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-911A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on November 29, 2004. GTC admits in its response that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was inadvertently switched. We find that GTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GTC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-912A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Tele Circuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Circuit of the complaint and Tele Circuit responded on July 12, 2004. Tele Circuit states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Tele Circuit has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-913A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Yestel to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on October 8, 2003. We find that 011 did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-914A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 9, 2004. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed via a letter of agency. Upon review of CTS's response, we find that CTS has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. We find that CTS has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-915A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Lightwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightwave of the complaint and Lightwave responded on November 29, 2004. Lightwave states that it inadvertently changed Complainant's telecommunication service provider. We find that Lightwave has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Lightwave's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-916A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Lightwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightwave of the complaint and Lightwave responded on August 20, 2004. Lightwave states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Lightwave has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-917A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Lightwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightwave of the complaint and Lightwave responded on November 29, 2004. LightWave indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LightWave's verifier, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber as required by our rules. LightWave has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-918A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Line Systems without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line Systems of the complaint and Line Systems responded on June 29, 2004. Line Systems states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Line Systems's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold as required by our rules. We find that Line Systems has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-919A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-920A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-922A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SkyNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SkyNet of the complaint and SkyNet responded on November 10, 2004. Upon review of SkyNet's response, we find that SkyNet has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in SkyNet's receipt of an LOA with an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-923A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTC of the complaint and GTC responded on December 27, 2004. GTC has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by GTC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-924A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZPDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZPDI of the complaint and ZPDI responded on January 7, 2005. We find that ZPDI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-925A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on October 21, 2004. New Rochelle states that Complainant's service was switched in error. We find that New Rochelle has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that New Rochelle's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-927A1.txt
  • complaint on October 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on December 17, 2004. Sprint responded on January 14, 2005. In its response, Sprint states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Cox. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on March 7, 2005. Cox admits that it mistakenly changed the Complainant's long distance service to Sprint. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cox's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-928A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on February 22, 2005. Opex states that Complainant's service was reactivated in error. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Opex's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-929A1.txt
  • Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on December 7, 2004. Sprint responded on January 7, 2005. In its response Sprint states that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 1, 2005. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to Sprint on the service order. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-930A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-930A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-930A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 22, 2004. ACN states that authorization was received when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that ACN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-931A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-931A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-931A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Promisevision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Promisevision of the complaint and Promisevision responded on October 11, 2004. Promisevision states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Promisevision's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Promisevision has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-932A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Choice One to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded August 16, 2004. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Broadview has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-933A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on December 21, 2004. Universal has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Universal has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-934A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NECC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaints and NECC responded. NECC states that Complainants authorized the change in services. NECC, however, failed to provide third party verification tapes or letters of agency as required by our rules. NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-935A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2004, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Yestel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Yestel of the complaint and Yestel responded on November 22, 2004. Yestel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Yestel's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Yestel has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-936A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-936A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-936A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on October 20, 2004. Acceris states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-937A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-937A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-937A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 17, 2004. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-938A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 5, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-939A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-940A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon's responses state that it switched the Complainants' service due, collectively, to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-941A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-942A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on February 24, 2005. Acceris states that authorization was received through a third party verifier. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-943A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 26, 2004. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-944A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. (MCI) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 1, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-945A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-946A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cox to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 15, 2004. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Cox. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on March 2, 2005. Cox admits
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-947A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 18, 2005. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone numbers were added to the account of a Sprint business customer in error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-948A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Airnex Communications (Airnex) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 20, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). Sprint's LOA, however, did not contain the telephone number to be switched. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-949A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on August 16, 2004. Cox admits that a sales representative changed the letter of agency to include intraLATA and interLATA service after Complainant agreed only to have Cox provide local service. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-94A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-94A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-94A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) to CCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CCC of the complaint and CCC responded on July 2, 2004. CCC states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CCC's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that CCC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 12, 2004. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. On the facts before us, the circumstances resulting in Sprint's receipt of an LOA with an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-951A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 23, 2004. AT&T has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification recording as proof of the authorization for the switch, as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-952A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-953A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 29, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint, however, was unable to produce a recorded copy of the third party verification. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-954A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-955A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on August 25, 2004. Covista did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Covista has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Covista's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-957A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to McLeod without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeod of the complaint and McLeod responded on November 16, 2004. McLeod states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. McLeod's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that McLeod has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-958A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 22, 2004. IDT states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received and processed. IDT's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that IDT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-959A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Communications Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Network of the complaint and Communications Network responded on February 28, 2005. Communications Network has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that Communications Network has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-95A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-95A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-95A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Telephone Company (SBC) to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on May 16, 2004. LDA states that it inadvertently changed Complainant's telecommunication service provider. We find that LDA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDA's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-960A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Communications Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Communications Billing of the complaint and Communications Billing responded on September 7, 2004. Communications Billing has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Communications Billing in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-961A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded September 17, 2004. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-962A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on October 21, 2004. We find that Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-963A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 19, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on August 5, 2004. We find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-964A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Optical without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Optical of the complaints. Optical has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Optical to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Optical's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-965A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to One Star without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Star of the complaint. Telrite Corporation (Telrite), on behalf of One Star, responded on January 19, 2005. Telrite states that One Star is without knowledge or documents to answer the complaint. One Star has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-966A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on November 9, 2004. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Horizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-967A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 4, 2005. OneLink states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and failed to confirm the number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-968A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded. Acceris states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-969A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Excel Telecommunications, Inc. (Excel) to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on August 9, 2004. Talk America states that authorization was received when a signed letter of agency was received and processed. Talk America's LOA, however, was not dated by the subscriber, as required by our rules. Based on the LOA that was submitted, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-96A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-96A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-96A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Star Power without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Star Power of the complaint and Star Power responded on March 30, 2004. Star Power has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-970A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (Capital) to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on November 23, 2004. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-971A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on November 18, 2004. We find that Talk America did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-972A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on September 29, 2004. New Century has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-973A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec Telecom, Inc. to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on July 2, 2004. We find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-974A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaint and SBC responded on October 11, 2004. SBC states that authorization was received and confirmed by a signed letter of agency. We find that SBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-975A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on July 22, 2004. ACN has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-976A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded on October 27, 2004. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-977A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. Primus states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, failed to confirm the types of services involved and failed to confirm the number to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-978A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-979A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to New Century without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaints and New Century responded. New Century states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. New Century's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold and failed to confirm the number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that New Century
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-97A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-97A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-97A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on July 1, 2004. LDC's states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the types of services to be switched as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-980A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on January 26, 2005. LDCB states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-981A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to US Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified US Connect of the complaint and US Connect responded on November 16, 2004. We find that US Connect did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-982A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Netone International to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August, 18, 2004. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-983A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 15, 2004. Primus states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Primus's verification, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-984A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to World-Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified World-Link of the complaint and World-Link responded on November 9, 2004. World-Link has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch as required by our rules. We find that World-Link has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-985A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CloseCall America, Inc. (CloseCall) to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on July 23, 2004. Quasar states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Quasar's verification, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-986A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on July 15, 2004. We find that Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-988A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on August 2, 2004. Americatel states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Americatel's verification, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Americatel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-989A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-98A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-98A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-98A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to SBC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBC of the complaints and SBC responded. SBC admits Complainants' telecommunications service provided was switched in error. We fined that SBC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that SBC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-990A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Opex responded on September 21, 2004. Opex states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly switched due to an error involving improper data entry. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find the Opex's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-991A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2004 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Business Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Business Network of the complaint and Business Network responded on September 1, 2004. Business Network states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Business Network's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. Business Network has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-992A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had not been changed from AT&T to Verizon as requested. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 9, 2005. Verizon states that the customer completed a letter of agency on October 13, 2004 to switch service to Verizon. Verizon states that, due to a switch translation error, the customer's request was not processed immediately. We find that Verizon's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-99A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-99A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-99A1.txt
  • subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were changed to LCR without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1113A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1114A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1115A1.txt
  • the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, no later than 30 days before the planned transfer, a letter notification in CC Docket 00-257 that meets the requirements listed in Section 64.1120 (e)(1) of our rules, including proper customer notice. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaints and Pioneer responded. Pioneer responded that it entered into an asset purchase agreement with Adelphia Telecommunications, Inc. and followed the requirements noted above. We find that Pioneer did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1116A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 23, 2005. We find that, based on ACN's response, ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1117A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on April 13, 2006. We find that, based on Pioneer's response, Pioneer did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1118A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 3, 2005. We find that, based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1119A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Coastal Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 22, 2005. We find that, based on AT&T's response, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1120A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on May 2, 2006. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1121A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on February 3, 2006. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1122A1.txt
  • Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America (Talk) without Complainant's authorization. We served Talk on January 18, 2006. Talk responded on February 17, 2006. In its response, Talk stated that they received a call over their network so they created a new account for billing purposes. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon Complainant's local exchange carrier of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 16, 2006. Verizon states that due to a processing error Complainant's service provider was not switched as requested. The LEC caused unreasonable delay in executing the switch for the Complaintant. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in a violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1123A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Touch Telecom, Inc. (Global Touch) to GT Telecomm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaint and GT Telecomm responded on March 3, 2006. Although GT Telecomm states, ``it has either LOA's/TPV's and/or eLOA or agent agreement/attorney letter(s) for all of its customers,'' GT Telecomm did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1124A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (Verizon) to PAETEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PAETEC of the complaint and PAETEC responded on March 16, 2006. PAETEC admits it mistakenly changed Complainant's telecommunication service to Paetec during a merger with another carrier. We find that PAETEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PAETEC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1125A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon, Inc. (Verizon) to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on April 5, 2006. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1126A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1126A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1126A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 7, 2006. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1127A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1127A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1127A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on May 2, 2006. BullsEye did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that BullsEye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BullsEye's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1128A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1128A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1128A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (AT&T, Inc.) to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on April 20, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1129A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1129A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1129A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on September 9, 2005. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1130A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (AT&T, Inc.) to TCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on December 21, 2005. TCI states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. TCI, however, did not provide a legible LOA when requested, as required by our rules. We find that TCI has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1131A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1131A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1131A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on April 10, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1132A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1132A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1132A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance d/b/a Verizon to Trinsic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint and Trinsic responded on April 18, 2006. Trinsic did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Trinsic has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Trinsic's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1133A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on April 12, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1140A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 19, 2005. MCI stated that Complainant's telephone number was switched due to an order received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Buggs Island Telephone Cooperative (Buggs). We served MCI's response on Buggs on August 3, 2005, and Buggs responded on November 4, 2005. Buggs stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 9, 2006. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1142A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's response, coupled with information received from each Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1143A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 31, 2006. Sprint states that the authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint, however, adds that it was unable to locate a copy of the TPV. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1144A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 14, 2006. Sprint states that the account was installed in error when a business account customer included Complainant's number in a list of numbers to be switched. Sprint, however, did not provide a copy of a signed letter of agency or third party verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1145A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 17, 2006. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1146A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1147A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 7, 2006. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1148A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 4, 2006. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a signed letter of agency was received. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1151A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2005, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to ClearWorld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on November 2, 2005. ClearWorld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ClearWorld's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier switch as required by our rules. We find that ClearWorld has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1152A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on March 7, 2006. Online Savings submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Online Savings's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1153A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on March 1, 2006. UAT submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. UAT's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain appropriate verification data such as, for example social security number or date of birth, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1154A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on February 28, 2006. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). CTS's LOA, however, was not fully dated by the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1155A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on May 4, 2006. Talk did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1156A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on April 28, 2006. Startec states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1157A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on February 14, 2006. BNLD submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. BNLD's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1158A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on March 16, 2006. BellSouth however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. BellSouth has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that BellSouth's actions resulted in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1159A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 20, 2006. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions did not result in unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1160A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2006, alleging that complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on April 28, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephones to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1161A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 1, 2006. Silv submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Silv's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1162A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier changes as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1163A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on March 27, 2006. NECC states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to its error. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1164A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Verizon to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaint, and America responded on March 6, 2006. America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1165A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 9, 2006. Based on Talk's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, we find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1166A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 2, 2006. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1339A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on April 24, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1340A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1340A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1340A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. BNLD's verifiers, however, failed to confirm that the persons on the calls wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1341A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on April 10, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1342A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded October 6, 2005. We find that, based on Excel's response, Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1343A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on December 22, 2005. PowerNet admits in its response that due to its provisioning error, Complainant's interLATA service was switched to PowerNet. We find that PowerNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PowerNet's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1344A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Q-Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Q-Tel of the complaint, and Q-Tel responded on November 1, 2005. Q-Tel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Q-Tel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Q-Tel's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1352A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaints and CNB responded. CNB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, CNB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. CNB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1353A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, Preferred Billing's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. Preferred Billing has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1354A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1355A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Hello Depot without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hello Depot of the complaint and Hello Depot responded on March 13, 2006. Hello Depot states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Hello Depot's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1356A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on May 18, 2006. NetOne states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that NetOne has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1357A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Acceris Communications (Acceris) to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 17, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1358A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on June 1, 2006. Buzz states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Buzz's sales representative, however, failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that Buzz has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1359A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1360A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1361A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1361A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1361A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sage Telecom (Sage) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 18, 2006. Sprint states that the account was authorized and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Sprint's verifier, however, confirmed a telephone number different from the telephone number that was actually switched. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1362A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1362A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1362A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 10, 2006. MCI states that the Complainant's telephone number was switched when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and submitted. MCI's LOA, however, failed to obtain Complainant's billing address, and the LOA was not dated by the subscriber, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1363A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1363A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1363A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 23, 2006. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1364A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1364A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1364A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 6, 2006. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of Sprint's response, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1365A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1365A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1365A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from each Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1366A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-162A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Airnex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Airnex of the complaint and Airnex responded on November 28, 2005. Airnex states that it switched Complainant's service in error due to a system problem. We find that Airnex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Airnex's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-163A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primo Communications, Inc. (Primo) to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on November 22, 2005. NET has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that NET has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-164A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NCIC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCIC of the complaint and NCIC responded on December 12, 2005. We find that NCIC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-165A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on November 14, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, marketed voicemail service, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-166A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on December 22, 2005. PNG has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that PNG has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1679A1.txt
  • Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had not been changed to Verizon Long Distance and remained with AT&T without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T on July 22, 2005. AT&T responded on September 14, 2005. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to a third party verification recording. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 29, 2005. Verizon's response states that it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant by four months. Verizon, therefore caused an unreasonable delay in executing the switch for the Complainant. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-167A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Rochelle without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Rochelle of the complaint and New Rochelle responded on December 30, 2005. New Rochelle states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. New Rochelle's verifier, however, marketed voicemail service, is in violation of our rules. We find that New Rochelle has not produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1680A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on September 13, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1681A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded June 9, 2005. We find that, based on AT&T's response, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1682A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1683A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on the AT&T's response, coupled with information received from the Complainants' local exchange carrier, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1684A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Tech to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 31, 2006. Based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. 5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1685A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on July 25, 2006. WilTel has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by WilTel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1686A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Corporation of the complaint, and AT&T Corporation responded on December 8, 2005. AT&T Corporation states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T Corporation has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T Corporation's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1687A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on June 21, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1688A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from North Pittsburgh Telephone Company (North Pittsburgh) to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 16, 2005. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm appropriate verification data (e.g. a birth date or social security number), and the NECC sales representative failed to drop off the call once the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1689A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 24, 2006. In its response, AT&T states that no orders were placed for its services. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.l150 of our rules, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cox, of the complaint and Cox responded on June 15, 2006. Cox admits that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-168A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 30, 2005. Startec states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1690A1.txt
  • Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. We served AT&T on January 13, 2006. AT&T responded on February 13, 2006. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 25, 2006. Sprint's response states that it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant by seven months. Sprint, therefore, caused an unreasonable delay in executing the switch of Complainant's service. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1691A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers , we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1698A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 26, 2005. Excel states that it received a letter of agency (LOA) dated August 12, 1999, from the subscriber, but there was a delay in activating his long distance service. Excel says Complainant contacted Excel on October 28, 1999, to follow up on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1699A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on March 29, 2006. Startec states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to a Startec error. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on September 22, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1700A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on March 14, 2006. We find that, based on Acceris'response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1701A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on February 24, 2006. We find that based on Talk's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1702A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Andiamo Telecom to Discounted without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discounted of the complaint and Discounted responded on June 8, 2006. Discounted did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Discounted has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Discounted's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1703A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on June 18, 2006. CSP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CSP's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that CSP has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1704A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on June 22, 2006. CSP did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that CSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CSP's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1705A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on June 26, 2006. Buzz states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Buzz has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1706A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on June 16, 2006. NECC submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in Complainant's service provider. NECC's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was was authorized to make the carrier change as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1707A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on April 12, 2006. NetOne states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NetOne's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules. We find that NetOne has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1708A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth, Inc. to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on June 24, 2006. LDC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1709A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-170A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on December 19, 2005. ACN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1710A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, Preferred Billing's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. Preferred Billing has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1711A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1712A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1713A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDS has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints and Cavalier responded. Cavalier indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, Cavalier's the sales agent, however, failed to drop off the call once the automated verification was established with the three way connection, with the third party verifier and the customer. Cavalier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1715A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NECC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaints and NECC responded. NECC states that Complainants authorized the change in services. NECC, however, failed to provide a third party verification tapes or letters of agency as required by our rules. NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1716A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaints and CNB responded. CNB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, CNB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. CNB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1718A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Based on Qwest's responses to the complaints, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-171A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ACN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. ACN states that authorizations were received when letters of authorization (LOAs) were signed and processed. ACN's LOA's, however, were combined with inducements for, among other things, DSL internet service and voicemail service, in violation of our rules. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-172A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes of Complainants' telecommunications service. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1735A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1735A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1735A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1736A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1746A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T on July 1, 2005 of the compliant and AT&T responded on July 26, 2005. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1747A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 25, 2005. We find that, based on Cavalier's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cavalier did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-176A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NationsLine without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NationsLine of the complaint and NationsLine responded on January 6, 2006. NationsLine states that it did not know that Complainant had changed to another provider when it conducted a mass internal rollover to change its customers' class of service which, in turn, changed Complainant's telecommunications service provider. We find that NationsLine has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-177A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on December 16, 2005. BullsEye states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that BullsEye has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that BullsEye's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on November 17, 2005. Advantage did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Advantage has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-179A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon Long Distance (VLD) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on November 4, 2005. However, VLD states that it received a transaction code from Complainant's local exchange carrier Cox to switch Complainant's service. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 20, 2005. Cox
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-180A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCI of the complaint on August 17, 2005. NCI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NCI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-181A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on December 6, 2005. MSTC states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. MSTC's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that MSTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-182A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on December 1, 2005. VLD states that authorization was received and authorized through third party verification. VLD's verifier, however, did not obtain oral authorization, as required by our rules. We find that VLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-183A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 3, 2006. Verizon admits that, as a result of a software error, Complainant's interstate service was mistakenly switched when only Complainant's international service was to be switched. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-184A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Inc. (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 10, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification due to a transaction error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-185A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were established and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). MCI further states that, due to equipment failure, MCI was unable to retrieve the TPV's. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier changes.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-186A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-187A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 16, 2005. MCI admits that the telephone number on the order was entered incorrectly and Complainant's telephone number was switched inadvertently. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 13, 2005. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-189A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-190A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 5, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Sprint, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification due to a technical error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1954A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint, and Silv responded on July 24, 2006. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1955A1.txt
  • the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, no later than 30 days before the planned transfer, a letter notification in CC Docket 00-257 that meets the requirements listed in Section 64.1120 (e)(1) of our rules, including proper customer notice. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on April 13, 2006. Pioneer's response states it became the long distance service provider for Complainant on or about October 19, 2005, via purchasing the customer base of Adelphia; and Pioneer claims it and Adelphia followed the Commission's streamline procedure rules. Pioneer attached copies of documents
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1956A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaints and CNBI responded. CNBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, CNBI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that CNBI has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1957A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Comcast to Sharenet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sharenet of the complaint and Sharenet responded on August 1, 2006. The calls made by Complainant were operated assisted calls and, therefore, did not relate to a change of Complainant's service. We, therefore, find that Sharenet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1959A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaints and CNBI responded. CNBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. CNBI's verifiers, however, failed to confirm that the people on the calls wanted to make the carrier changes, as required by our rules. We find that CNBI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1960A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint, and Sprint Nextel responded on August 25, 2006. Sprint Nextel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint Nextel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1961A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primo Communications to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on July 27, 2006. In its response, NECC admits an error occurred and that it had experienced technical difficulties which resulted in certain accounts being reconnected with NECC. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1965A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Vartec to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 4, 2005. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1966A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Convergia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Convergia of the complaints and Convergia responded. Convergia states that it is the long distance provider for Cognigen Networks. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1968A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 17, 2005. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1969A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 10, 2005. ACN stated that Complainant's service was switched to ACN by the consumer via Complainant's local exchange carrier) LEC). We notified Global, ACN's underlying carrier of the complaint, in order to confirm that it had not mistakenly changed Complainant's interLATA service to ACN.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1970A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on December 22, 2005. NET has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by NET in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1971A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to Hawaiian Telcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hawaiian Telcom of the complaint and Hawaiian Telcom responded on December 16, 2005. Hawaiian Telcom states that Verizon confirmed to Hawaiian Telcom that a Verizon switch processing error caused the unauthorized switch of Complainant's telephone service. Specifically, Complainant's interstate service was mistakenly switched when only Complainant's international service was to be switched. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1972A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications Inc. to McLeodUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeodUSA of the complaint and McLeodUSA responded on November 3, 2005. We find that, based on McLeodUSA's response, McLeodUSA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2066A1.txt
  • must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on December 16, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint. In response, AT&T submitted a third party verification recording (TPV) as proof of authorization of the switch. The TPV included with AT&T's response, however, did not contain any dialogue between the subscriber and the third party verifier and, thus, failed to include any of the confirmations required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2067A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, CGB notified Comcast of the complaint. In response, Comcast stated that it verified Complainant's order through a letter of agency (LOA). The LOA provided by Comcast, however, was illegible. The Division found, therefore, that Comcast had not provided clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized change, and was thus in violation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2068A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on September 11, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Verizon of the complaint. In its response, Verizon did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by the Commission's rules, or any other evidence indicating that it had complied with the Commission's carrier change rules when it became Complainant's preferred carrier. The Division found that Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2069A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on May 22, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to Globalcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, CGB notified Globalcom of the complaint. Instead of responding on the merits, Globalcom argued that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over local telephone service complaints, and that Globalcom considered the matter closed. II. DISCUSSION While Globalcom's jurisdictional argument was not addressed in the Division Order, the Commission has affirmed that it does have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2070A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on October 23, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Eastern Telecom to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, CGB notified MCI of the complaint. MCI responded that conversion of Complainant's service was due to a data entry error. The Division found, therefore, that MCI had not provided clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized change, and that its actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider. MCI seeks
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2071A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received various complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaints. In its responses, Sprint stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through letters of agency (LOAs). The Division determined that Sprint's LOAs were illegible and that Sprint was unable to provide clear copies. Therefore, the Division found that Sprint failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2072A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received two complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaints. In its responses, Sprint stated that authorizations were received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed via its website. The Division determined that Sprint's LOAs forced the consumers to de-select any service they did not want to switch in violation of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2073A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on September 29, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaint. Sprint responded that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In the Division Order, the Division found that Sprint's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change and, therefore, that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2074A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2074A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2074A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 4, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint. In response, U.S. Telecom stated that the authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In the Division Order, the Division found that U.S. Telecom's sales representative failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established with the third-party verification company, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2075A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Covista Communications to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint. In response, U.S. Telecom stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In the Division Order, the Division found that U.S. Telecom's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by the Commission's rules, and that U.S. Telecom's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-207A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to ACN without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaints and ACN responded. ACN states that authorizations were received when signed letters of agency (LOA) were received and processed. The LOA accompanying ACN's responses, however, contain language confirming Complainants' choice of DSL service, in violation of our rules. A LOA must be for the sole purpose of obtaining authorization
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-208A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on December 9, 2005. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, marketed various services, is in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-209A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to XO without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified XO of the complaint and XO responded on June 13, 2005. XO states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. The LOA proffered by XO, however, does not contain the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. XO's submission consists of three pages,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-210A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on January 31, 2005. Global states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Global's verification, however, failed to obtain separate authorization to switch local service, as required by our rules. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-211A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Amerivision Communications d/b/a Lifeline Communications to Promisevision without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Promisevision of the complaint and Promisevision responded on November 14, 2005. Promisevision did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that Promisevision has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Promisevision's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-212A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on January 6, 2006. NECC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-213A1.txt
  • had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on February 3, 2005, and Sprint responded on March 4, 2005. Sprint states that the switch in service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier (``LEC'') and it provided as evidence a copy of the Customer Account Record Exchange order from the LEC. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Innovative Telephone (Innovative) of the complaint and Innovative responded on June 15, 2005. In its response, Innovative states that the switch was requested by Sprint. However, the evidence provided by Innovative was for a carrier change request well after the Complainant's service was switched to Sprint. We requested further evidence from Innovative on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-214A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-215A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on June 1, 2005. ACN states that ACN initiated the switch and that the switch was made via the local exchange carrier. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-216A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 22, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-217A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 14, 2005. Although numerous requests were made to Sprint by Commission staff, Sprint was unable to locate a copy of a signed letter or any other verification for this account authorizing a change. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2181A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Talk America, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 26, 2006. AT&T admits in its response that its verifier, during its third party verification process, accepted authorization from the person on the call who was a 13-year old, in violation of our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2182A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 21, 2006. We find that, based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2183A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 27, 2006. We find that based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2184A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on January 24, 2006. Pioneer has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Pioneer in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2185A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 22, 2006. Verizon states that Complainant had requested internet service from Verizon. Verizon processed the request and also inadvertently changed Complainant's local service to Verizon. Verizon has not submitted a third party verification or a letter of agency as proof of the authorized switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 13, 2006. We find that, based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2187A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 31, 2006. AT&T states in its response that Complainant's phone number was removed in early November 2005, but was switched back on November 11, 2005, without Complainant's authorization during a service migration. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 16, 2006. Based on information, received from Qwest and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2189A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on May 2, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Preferred Billing's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2190A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 26, 2006. We find that based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2191A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on March 23, 2006. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sage has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2192A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 29, 2005. Based on information, received from Qwest and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2193A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WOW! without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WOW! of the complaint and WOW! responded on March 13, 2006. WOW! states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that WOW! has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2194A1.txt
  • note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Link Solutions, Inc. (World Link) to AT&T Corporation by MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 26, 2006. AT&T states in its response that MCI initiated the switch. We notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 22, 2006. In its response, MCI admits an error occurred and that MCI inadvertently switched Complainant's account to AT&T. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2195A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BBG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BBG of the complaint and BBG responded on March 23, 2006. We find that BBG did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that BBG's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2196A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on February 22, 2006. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2198A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on March 20, 2006. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to GlobalTouch without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GlobalTouch of the complaints and GlobalTouch responded. GlobalTouch states that Complainant's telephone numbers were mistakenly keyed into its system by GlobalTouch. GlobalTouch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that GlobalTouch's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2200A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 19, 2006. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2201A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 18, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2202A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on August 11, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2203A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications (Sprint) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 2, 2006. AT&T admits in its response that due to an AT&T provisioning error, Complainant's interLATA service was switched to AT&T. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2204A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cleartel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cleartel of the complaint and Cleartel responded on August 14, 2006. Cleartel admits in its response that due to human error, the Complainant was mistakenly reloaded into Cleartel's systems. We find that Cleartel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cleartel's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2205A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from American Long Lines Network (American) to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on August 8, 2006. LDC admits in its response that due to its data processing error, Complainant's interLATA service was switched to LDC. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LDC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2206A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on August 8, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2207A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth, (Complainant's local exchange carrier) of the complaint, and BellSouth responded on August 9, 2006. We also notified AT&T Corporation, pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, and AT&T responded on August 21, 2006. We find that based on BellSouth's response and AT&T's response, BellSouth did not violate our carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2208A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 26, 2006. AT&T states in its response that due to a data processing error, the disconnection order was not sent to the incumbent local exchange carrier for processing. As a result, AT&T continued to provide local services to this customer for which the customer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2209A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Qwest communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 13, 2006. AT&T states that a third party verification (TPV) recording was made as proof of the authorization. AT&T did not submit the TPV recording, but submitted a letter from its third party verifier stating that the recording could not be located. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2211A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunication to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on December 1, 2005. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. TeleDias's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainant wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that TeleDias has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2212A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communication (Cox) to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 5, 2006. Qwest states that the Complainant's telephone service was mistakenly entered due to Qwest's error. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2213A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaints and Sage responded. Sage states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Sage has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sage's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2214A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to One Touch without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Touch of the complaints and One Touch responded. One Touch indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, One Touch's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be swithed as required by our rules. One Touch has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2215A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cordia Communications (Cordia) to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on November 23, 2005. NET states that Complaintant signed up with NET on December 19, 2002, used NET long distance services, and NET never received any cancellation request from Complainant. It claims it moved its customers from facilities based carrier (FBC) Qwest to FBC Global Crossing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2216A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on November 9, 2005. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Preferred Billing's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2217A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 26, 2006 Silv submitted a third party verification tape as evidence of an authorized change in complainant's service provider. Silv's third party verifier, however, failed to confirm the carrier's name, as required by our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2218A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Axces without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Axces of the complaint and Axces responded on January 20, 2006. Based on Axces's response, coupled with information received from the Complainant's local exchange carrier,we find that Axces did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2219A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on January 12, 2006. ACN has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2220A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on April 6, 2006. We find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2221A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Touch of the complaints and One Touch responded. One Touch states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that One Touch has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that One Touch's actions did not result in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2222A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint and Frontier responded on March 16, 2006. Frontier states that it mistakenly used the wrong carrier identification processing complainants account, assigning complainant to the incorrect switch. We find that Frontier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Frontier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2223A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 26, 2006. Qwest states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Qwest has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2224A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VTX Telecom to Convergia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Convergia of the complaint and Convergia responded on January 3, 2006. Convergia did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Convergia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Convergia's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2225A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaints and Talk responded. Based on Talk's responses to the complaints, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that Talk's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2226A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to America without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaints and America responded. America indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). In each case, America's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. With respect to IC No. 06-S0001278S, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2227A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints and LDC responded. LDC indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. The third-party verifier in each case, however, did not obtain confirmation that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. The verifier's question, ``you are the person who handles [the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2228A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2239A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 11, 2006. We find that based on Sprint's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2240A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2241A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 6, 2006. Sprint admits that the account was established as a result of its typing error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2242A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Upon review of Sprint's responses, which included Sprint submitting third party verification (TPV) recordings, we find that Sprint has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each TPV recording gave an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2243A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 14, 2006. Sprint states that the account was established and later cancelled. Sprint also states that due to a timing delay, the account was later reactivated. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2244A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 23, 2006. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. MCI, however, was unable to obtain a copy of the third party verification due to a system problem. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2245A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Covista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Covista of the complaint and Covista responded on August 7, 2006. Covista states that the account was authorized and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Covista's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that Covista has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-226A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on January 17, 2006. LSI admits that it inadvertently switched Complainant's telecommunications carrier. We find that LSI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-227A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on December 16, 2005. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. UAT's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the change, as required by our rules. We find that UAT has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-228A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on December 22, 2005. Primus admits that Complainant's service was switched due to a computer error. We find that Primus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-229A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Privasafe without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Privasafe of the complaint and Privasafe responded on January 6, 2006. Privasafe states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Privasafe's electronic LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Privasafe has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-230A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 29, 2005. Qwest admits that it switched Complainant's service in error. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-231A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NRTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NRTC of the complaint and NRTC responded on December 30, 2005. NRTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NRTC's verifier, however, marketed the carrier's voice mail service, in violation of our rules. We find that NRTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-232A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on January 6, 2006. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. U.S. Telecom's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that U.S. Telecom has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-233A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on December 28, 2005. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that America Net has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that America Net's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-234A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NRTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NRTC of the complaint and NRTC responded on December 30, 2005. NRTC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NRTC's verifier, however, marketed the carrier's voice mail service, in violation of our rules. We find that NRTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-235A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on October 12, 2005. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on January 10, 2006. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-237A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearwave of the complaint and Clearwave responded on June 14, 2005. Clearwave did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Clearwave has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Clearwave's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2390A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 7, 2006. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2391A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC Telecom to Spectrol without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrol of the complaint, and Spectrol responded on September 5, 2006. Spectrol states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Spectrol has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Spectrol's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2392A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TelSeven without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TelSeven of the complaint and TelSeven responded on August 4, 2006. We find that, based on TelSeven's response, TelSeven did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2393A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on September 14, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2394A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint, and NALD responded on January 12, 2005. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2395A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cincinnati Bell to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 12, 2006. We find that based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2396A1.txt
  • carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaints and LCR responded. LCR has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by LCR in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2397A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to United without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United of the complaint and United responded on September 12, 2006. Upon review of United's response, we find that United has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2398A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 26, 2006. Cavalier has submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. However, the LOA submitted by Cavalier contains language unrelated to the purpose of authorizing initiation of a carrier change, in violation of our carrier change rules. Consequently,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2399A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on June 10, 2005. Buzz has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Buzz in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Bullseye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Bullseye of the complaint and Bullseye responded on April 20, 2006. Bullseye has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Bullseye has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2401A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on March 13, 2006. Matrix states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. The verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. We find that Matrix has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2402A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Enhance Communications to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on July 17, 2006. Based on Acceris's response, coupled with information received from the Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Acceris did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2403A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDS has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2404A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2405A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Hawaiian Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 13, 2006. AT&T states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. The verifier, however, failed to confirm appropriate verification data (e.g., the subscriber's date of birth or social security number) as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2406A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 10, 2006. We find that, based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2407A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from SBC Communications to AT&T, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 20, 2006. Upon review of AT&T's response, we find that AT&T has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the electronic letter of agency signed the incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2409A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP Telecom of the complaint and CSP Telecom responded on October 5, 2006. CSP Telecom states that Complainant's service was switched due to a keying error by CSP Telecom. We find that CSP Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CSP
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2410A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 4, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm whether the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2411A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint, and Spectrotel responded on October 10, 2006. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Spectrotel's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2412A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on April 5, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verifier. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2413A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on February 23, 2006. VLD states: (a) authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV) and (b) it is attaching the TPV and recording and the TPV transcript with its response. VLD, however, did not submit the TPV recording as required by our rules;
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2414A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on April 17, 2006. We find that based on Global's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2415A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONE Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONE Touch of the complaint and ONE Touch responded on October 6, 2006. ONE Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ONE Touch's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that ONE Touch has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2416A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 22, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2417A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on October 31, 2006. Main Street states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Main Street's LOA, however, did not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. We find that Main Street
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2418A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on September 8, 2006. NECC states that due to technical difficulties NECC experienced, Complainant's service was switched back to NECC without Complainant's authorization. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2419A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Discounted Telecommunications without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Discounted Telecommunications of the complaint and Discounted Telecommunications responded on September 18, 2006. Discounted Telecommunications did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Discounted Telecommunications has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2420A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to One Communications without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Communications of the complaint and One Communications responded on July 27, 2006. One Communications states that due to a One Communications training error, Complainant's service was switched. We find that One Communications has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that One Communications's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2421A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GlobalTouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GlobalTouch of the complaint and GlobalTouch responded on July 24, 2006. GlobalTouch states that Complainant's telephone number was entered into its system by one of its agents in error. We find that GlobalTouch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that GlobalTouch's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2422A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FiberNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FiberNet of the complaint and FiberNet responded on September 5, 2006. FiberNet did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that FiberNet has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that FiberNet's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2423A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on August 4, 2006. Talk admits that Complainant's service was inadvertently switched. We find that Talk has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Talk's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2424A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on May 22, 2006. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Birch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2425A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on October 4, 2006. Upon review of Silv's response, we find that Silv has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2426A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on October 19, 2006. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2430A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONE Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONE Touch of the complaint and ONE Touch responded on September 15, 2006. Upon review of ONE Touch's response, we find that ONE Touch has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2431A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Curry without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Curry of the complaint and Curry responded on February 11, 2006. Curry states Complainant's account was established following the receipt of a letter of authorization (LOA). Curry's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber designates Curry to act as subscriber's agent for the change, that subscriber understands that only one carrier can
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2432A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Based on Qwest's responses to the complaints, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, we find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2433A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaints and Comcast responded. We find that Comcast did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2434A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Touch to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on April 17, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm thatf the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2435A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint and Telrite responded on June 30, 2006. We find that Telrite did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2436A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on June 21, 2006. We find that Pioneer did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2595A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel Communications (WilTel) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on December 15, 2005. WilTel states it received an order from FB Connection to change Complainant's service to FB Connection. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FB Connection of the complaint, and FB Connection responded on March 20, 2006. FB Connection
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2596A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on October 6, 2006. We find that PNG did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2597A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on August 28, 2006. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed. We find that Cavalier has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2598A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telecom USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecom USA of the complaint and MCI, on behalf of Telecom USA, responded on August 16, 2006. Because presubscribed service was not involved, we find that Telecom USA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2599A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on July 6, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that there was failure to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2600A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on October 20, 2006. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2601A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on October 26, 2006. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2602A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 3, 2006. We find that based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2603A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TDS Metrocom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS Metrocom of the complaint and TDS Metrocom responded on October 17, 2006. TDS Metrocom states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA TDS Metrocom's LOA it submitted with its response and find that there LOA, failed to inform
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2606A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on September 1, 2006. LDC states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change. We find that LDC has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2608A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 16, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with BNLD's response and find that BNLD sales representative failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2609A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CSP Telecom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP Telecom of the complaints and CSP Telecom responded. CSP Telecom indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted with CSP's responses and, in each case, CSP Telecom's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2610A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PowerNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PowerNet of the complaint and PowerNet responded on October 25, 2006, saying it does not have sufficient verification for the account. PowerNet has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2611A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on November 21, 2006. ACN states that Complainant's service was switched due to an order entry error. We find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2612A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on September 15, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with BNLD's response and find that BNLD failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2613A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints and LDC responded. LDC indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that LDC submitted with its responses and find that, in each case, the verifier failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2614A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on November 20, 2006. Global admits that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was inadvertently switched as a result of an employee error. We find that Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Global's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2615A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 8, 2006. Qwest states that Complainant's account was established as an unsolicited switch by an order from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) BellSouth. We find that based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC stating that Complainant initiated the switch, Qwest
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2631A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 6, 2006. MCI states that Complainant's telephone number was added by MCI to an MCI business account in error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-356A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-356A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-356A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on March 7, 2005. VLD states that Complainant's service was switched to VLD based on an order initiated by Trinsic, Complainant's local exchange carrier. Pursuant to VLD's response and Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint and Trinsic responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-411A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-412A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service providers had been changed from Think 12 to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded December 5, 2005. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Think 12. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Think 12 of the complaint. Think 12 has failed to respond to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-413A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 14, 2005. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, TDS. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaint and TDS responded. TDS states that, due to an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-414A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Aimex Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 30, 2005. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-415A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Trinsic to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 6, 2005. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Trinsic. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint. Trinsic has failed to respond to the complaint. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-416A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 14, 2005. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-417A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-428A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NetOne International to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on April 12, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-429A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 21, 2005. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NECC''s verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-430A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 4, 2006. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-432A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 15, 2005. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-434A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed or through third party verifications. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions did not result
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-436A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 23, 2005. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-437A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 20, 2005. Sprint states that the account was added to the account of another business customer through an error made by one of Sprint's employees. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-438A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz Telecom of the complaint and Buzz Telecom responded on June 21, 2005. Buzz Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Buzz Telecom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Buzz Telecom's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-439A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched due to typographical and data entry errors collectively made by MCI employees. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-440A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 22, 2005. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Verizon's verifier, however, failed to obtain subscriber's oral authorization to submit a carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-441A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 23, 2005. MCI states Complainant's account was established following the receipt of a letter of authorization (LOA) via the internet. MCI's LOA, however, failed to confirm: subscriber's address, the decision to change from current carrier to new carrier, that subscriber designates MCI to act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-442A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on February 2, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-443A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-444A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Globcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Globcom of the complaints. Globcom has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Globcom to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Globcom's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Globcom's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-445A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on January 31, 2006. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-446A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 22, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-447A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 011 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified 011 of the complaint and 011 responded on January 24, 2006. 011 states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that 011 has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that 011's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-448A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on January 27, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-449A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on December 16, 2005. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NCT's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-450A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 13, 2005. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-451A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-452A1.txt
  • August 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. We served Sprint on September 20, 2005, and Sprint responded on October 13, 2005. In its response, Sprint states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, EPT. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified EPT of the complaint and EPT responded on December 22, 2005. EPT admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to Sprint. We find that EPT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that EPT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-453A1.txt
  • on July 18, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. We served MCI on July 20, 2005, and MCI responded on September 1, 2005. In its response, MCI states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, TDS. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaint and TDS responded on October 12, 2005. TDS admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed by TDS to MCI. We find that TDS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TDS's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-454A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to American without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified American of the complaint and American responded on May 20, 2005. American states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that American has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-455A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 7, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-456A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on September 23, 2005. Main Street has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Main Street has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-457A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to One Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Touch of the complaint and One Touch responded on November 14, 2005. One Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that One Touch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-458A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on November 7, 2005. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-459A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norristown of the complaint and Norristown responded on January 12, 2006. Norristown has failed to provide a letter of agency or third party verification as proof of the authorization for the switch of Complainant's service, as required by our rules. We find that Norristown has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-460A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 22, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-461A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 7, 2005. Based on Qwest's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint, and LDC responded on October 7, 2005. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-462A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on June 14, 2005. We find that Network did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that Network's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-463A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to Lightyear without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on June 14, 2005. We find that Lightyear did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-464A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on July 15, 2005. We find that WilTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that WilTel's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-465A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints and LDC responded. LDC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. In each case, the verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. The verifier asked, ``You are the person who
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-467A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, Preferred Billing's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change as required by our rules. Preferred Billing has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-468A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-469A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaints and Buzz responded. Buzz states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Buzz has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Buzz's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-478A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 16, 2005. MCI states that the switch was made by Complainant's local provider, Valor Telecom (Valor). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Valor of the complaint and MCI's response, and Valor responded on July 11, 2005. Valor stated that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-479A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 16, 2005. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-480A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 26, 2004. In MCI's response it states that the switch was made by Complainant's local provider, Verizon. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Verizon, and Verizon responded on June 16, 2005. Verizon stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-481A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Access One, Inc. (Access) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 25, 2005. In its initial response Sprint states that none of the Complainant's lines were on the Sprint network at the time of the alleged unauthorized carrier change. The Complainant's local exchange carrier, however, provided proof that the Complainant was on Sprint's network and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-656A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-657A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-661A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-678A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on April 11, 2005. LDC has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by LDC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-679A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints and LDC responded. LDC states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-680A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 22, 2005. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-681A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-682A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on February 2, 2006. ACN states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. ACN's LOA, however, contains language concerning more than the sole purpose of authorizing a carrier change and, thus, is in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-683A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 25, 2006. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-684A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on February 17, 2006. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that VLD actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-685A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on January 31, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Upon review of Startec's response, we find that Startec has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-686A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to GT Telecomm without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaints and GT Telecomm responded. GT Telecomm states that authorizations were received when letters of authorization (LOAs) were signed and processed. In each case, GT Telecomm's LOA's, however, failed to inform the subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA carrier for any
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-687A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on March 6, 2006. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-688A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 14, 2006. In its response, Qwest states interLATA and intraLATA service by Qwest was established for Complainant on June 4, 2004, Complainant disconnected interLATA service on June 9, 2004, with intraLATA service remaining with Qwest, and the request to change to another carrier (for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-689A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBCLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaint and SBCLD responded on February 14, 2006. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that SBCLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that SBCLD's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-690A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 3, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-691A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on March 6, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-692A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PAETEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PAETEC of the complaint and PAETEC responded on February 27, 2006. PAETEC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that PAETEC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that PAETEC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-693A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GT Telecomm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaint and GT Telecomm responded on February 27, 2006. GT Telecomm did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that GT Telecomm has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-694A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONE Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONE Touch of the complaint and ONE Touch responded on March 2, 2006. ONE Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. ONE Touch's verifier, however, failed to confirm that Complainant was authorized to make the switch. One Touch's verifier also failed to obtain separate authorization for long distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-695A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to GT Telecomm without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaints and GT Telecomm responded. Although GT Telecomm states it has LOA's/TPV's and/or eLOA or agent agreement/attorney letter(s) for all of its customers, GT Telecomm did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. GT Telecomm has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-696A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 3, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-703A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nationwide without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint and Nationwide responded on May 5, 2005. Nationwide has fully absolved Complainant of all charges assessed by Company in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-704A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. We find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-705A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on March 1, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. Preferred Billing's verifier, however, confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-706A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on January 24, 2006. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification company. Long Distance Savings' verifier, however failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-707A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaints and CNB responded. CNB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, CNB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. CNB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-708A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaints and Nationwide responded. We find that Nationwide's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-709A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Global without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaints and Global responded. Global states that Complainants authorized changes in services. Global, however, failed to provide a third party verification tapes or letters of agencys as required by our rules. Global has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Global's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-710A1.txt
  • the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Adelphia without Complainant's authorization. Adelphia states that it appears Complainant was switched back to Adelphia from Verizon when Adelphia changed its underlying facilities-based network. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Adelphia of the complaint and Adelphia responded on January 12, 2006. Adelphia states that it appears Complaintant was switched back to Verizon when Adelphia changed its underlying facilities-based network. We requested Preferred Interchange Carrier (PIC) information from Complainant's Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) on February 15, 2006, and LEC responded on February 21, 2006.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-711A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OLS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OLS of the complaint and OLS responded on July 12, 2005. We find that OLS did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-712A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on June 10, 2005. Talk states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. We find that Talk has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-713A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on December 15, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-714A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 19, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-715A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on February 15, 2006. UAT states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was the result of an error. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UAT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-716A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Touch Telecom to GT Telecomm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaint and GT Telecomm responded on February 21, 2006. GT Telecomm states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. GT Telecomm's LOA, however, failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-717A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on December 13, 2005. We find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that BellSouth's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainants telecommunications service. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-718A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications (Sprint) to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on January 6, 2006. CTS states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. CTS's LOA, however failed to inform the subscriber the decision to change from the current carrier to the new carrier as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-719A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to TTE without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TTE of the complaint and TTE responded on December 29, 2005. TTE states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed electronically and processed. TTE's LOA, however failed to confirm that the subscriber understood that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's interstate or interLATA preferred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-736A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-736A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-736A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Isterra to Primus ICM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on May 31, 2005. Primus states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Primus has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-737A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-737A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-737A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 18, 2005. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-738A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-738A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-738A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 7, 2006. MCI states that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently included on another customer's order for service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-739A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-739A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-739A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CoreComm to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 10, 2005. In its response, AT&T states the switch was made due to contact with the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 12, 2006. Verizon states
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-740A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 27, 2006. MCI states Complainant's account was established following the receipt of a letter of authorization (LOA) via the internet. MCI's LOA, however, failed to confirm subscriber's address, the decision to change from current carrier to new carrier, that subscriber designates MCI to act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-741A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-742A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-743A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-752A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint and CTS responded on November 7, 2005. CTS states that authorization was received and confirmed through a signed letter of agency (LOA). We find that CTS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The fact that the person who signed LOA gave
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-876A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Power Net Global Communication (PNGC) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 7, 2006. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-877A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-878A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-879A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-879A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-879A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-880A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 13, 2006. AT&T states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. The verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of the person on the recording as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-881A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 26, 2005. MCI admits that the telephone number on the order was entered incorrectly by an MCI representative and that Complainant's telephone number was switched inadvertently. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-882A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-882A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-882A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 21, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-883A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 9, 2005. AT&T has submitted a letter of agency as proof of authorization for the switch. However, the letter of agency submitted by AT&T is not legible, as is required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-884A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Pioneer without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaints and Pioneer responded. Pioneer's responses state that it switched the Complainants' service collectively, due to a human error. We find that Pioneer has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized the carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Pioneer's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-885A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-885A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-885A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Long Distance (BSLD) to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 25, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifier. BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-886A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-886A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-886A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NRTC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NRTC of the complaints and NRTC responded. NRTC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, however, NRTC's verifier marketed voicemail service, in violation of our rules. NRTC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized the carrier changes. Therefore, we find that NRTC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-887A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GT Telecomm without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GT Telecomm of the complaint and GT Telecomm responded on February 23, 2006. GT Telecomm states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. GT Telecomm's LOA, however, failed to inform the subscriber that only one carrier can be designated as the subscriber's interLATA carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-888A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-888A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-888A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-889A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-889A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-889A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-890A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on March 27, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-891A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-891A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-891A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on April 11, 2006. VLD did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that VLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that VLD's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-892A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on April 10, 2006. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-893A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 22, 2006. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-894A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon, Inc. (Verizon) to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on April 11, 2006. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. However, ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency when ZIN submitted its response, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-895A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on March 31, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-896A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 14, 2005. We find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-897A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on March 17, 2006. UAT states that Complainant's service was switched due to a data entry error. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UAT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-898A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on March 6, 2006. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. America Net's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that America Net has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-899A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on February 20, 2006. Acceris states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Acceris's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Acceris has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-900A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 16, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-901A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneTouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneTouch of the complaint and OneTouch responded on March 2, 2006. OneTouch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. OneTouch's sales representative, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established, as required by our rules. We find that OneTouch has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-908A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to One Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified One Touch of the complaint and One Touch responded on March 3, 2006. One Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. One Touch's verifier, however, failed to confirm all telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that One Touch has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-909A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NECC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaints and NECC responded. NECC indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-910A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Startec without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaints and Startec responded. Startec indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, Startec's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched as required by our rules. Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-911A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted make the carrier change as required by our rules. BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-912A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on August 1, 2005. We find that ACN did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-913A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Adelphia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Adelphia of the complaints and Adelphia responded. Adelphia however, failed to provide a third party verification tape or letter of agency as required by our rules. Adelphia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Adelphia's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-940A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 20, 2005. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-971A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 21, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-972A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 24, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions did not result in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-973A1.txt
  • the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, no later than 30 days before the planned transfer, a letter notification in CC Docket 00-257 that meets the requirements listed in Section 64.1120 (e)(1) of our rules, including proper customer notice. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaints and Pioneer responded. Pioneer entered into an asset purchase agreement with Adelphia Telecommunications, Inc. Pioneer has followed our requirements. We find that Pioneer did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1353A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 14, 2006. AT&T states that it did not bill the Complainant for international calls. In addition, we notified International Satellite Communications (ISC), pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, and ISC responded on December 26, 2006. From the information received from ISC,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1465A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on May 4, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Verizon of the complaint. In its response, Verizon stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division found that Verizon's TPV did not contain oral authorization as required by the Commission rules and, therefore, Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1466A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 17, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaint. In response, Sprint stated that, based on information it received from Frontier, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Sprint switched Complainant's telephone service. The Division found that Sprint did not violate the Commission's carrier change rules. Frontier seeks reconsideration of the Division Order. The Division notified Sprint of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1467A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received two complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Adelphia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Adelphia of the complaints. In its responses, Adelphia stated that it switched the Complainants' service collectively, due to a human error. In addition, Adelphia noted that it had sold assets to Pioneer. Therefore, the Division named Pioneer in the Division Order and found that Pioneer failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1491A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Trinsic without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaints and Trinsic responded. Trinsic states that after acquiring several active Sprint Local Base customers beginning February 1, 2006, it converted a number of those customers; in May 2006, the long distance conversions followed the conversion of the local services; and with the long distance conversions, Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1492A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1492A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1492A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to TTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TTI of the complaint and TTI responded on October 30, 2006. TTI states that a clerical error occurred which caused Complainant's account to be selected to TTI. We find that TTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TTI's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1493A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1493A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1493A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Windstream Communications (Windstream) to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 18, 2007. Verizon states that a service order was generated pending a response from the customer to complete a third party verification (TPV), and subsequently the service order was cancelled as the TPV never took place. Verizon further states that, at the time the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1494A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1494A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1494A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Verizon and find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1495A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 30, 2006. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Based on the TPV submitted by MCI, we find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1496A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 13, 2007. MCI states that Complainant's service was switched as a result of a system error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1497A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were established due to an internal reconciliation of records in October 2006, which caused new accounts to be established for both Complainants. MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1498A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1499A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1500A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 25, 2006. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Sprint with its response and find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1501A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 30, 2006. Sprint admits that the account was established as a result of a typing error. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1502A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV's submitted by Sprint with its responses and find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1503A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 2, 2006. Sprint states that the account was established when an electronic Letter of Agency (LOA) was submitted. Sprint's LOA, however failed to contain Complainant's telephone number, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1505A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on September 14, 2006. LDCB states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. The verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1506A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 26, 2006. Based on AT&T's response, we served the complaint on Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI. MCI responded on August 30, 2006. We find that based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from MCI confirming that AT&T did not slam Complainant, AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1507A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Citizens Communications Company (CCC) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 6, 2006. AT&T's response claimed it did not slam Complainant. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on CCC the Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1508A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that valid authorizations were given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1509A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCC of the complaint, and LCC responded on December 7, 2006. LCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LLC;s response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LCC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1510A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Pioneer Telephone to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint, and Verizon responded on September 26, 2006. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Verizon's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1511A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on Ocotber 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to HelloCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified HelloCom of the complaint and HelloCom responded on December 8, 2006. HelloCom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with HelloCom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that HelloCom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1512A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on November 26, 2006. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ATS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1513A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on December 12, 2006. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Spectrotel's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1514A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on February 26, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MyTel's response, and find that MyTel's verifier marketed additional MyTel services, in violation of our rules. We find that MyTel has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1515A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on January 8, 2007. TeleDias did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that TeleDias has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TeleDias's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1516A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaints and Sage responded. Sage states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We have reviewed the TPV's Sage filed with its responses and find that Sage has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sage's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1517A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 14, 2006. We find that, based on Talk's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier Verizon, Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1518A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on September 13, 2006. Pioneer has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Pioneer in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1519A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on August 25, 2006. We find that based on Acceris's response stating that it was Complainant's preferred carrier at the time of the alleged unauthorized carrier change, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier confirming Acceris's response, Acceris did not violate our carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1520A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCBC of the complaint and LDCBC responded on September 14, 2006. LDCBC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We find that LDCBC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1521A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1521A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1521A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on November 29, 2006. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. CNBI's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that CNBI has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1522A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on December 6, 2006. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV RRLD filed with its response and find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1523A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1523A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1523A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Windstream without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on January 10, 2007. Windstream admits that it switched Complainant's service without Complainant's authorization. Based on Windstream's response, we find that Windstream has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Windstream's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1524A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon, however, did not submit LOAs, but instead submitted confirmation emails sent from Horizon to the complainants. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1525A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TelSeven without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TelSeven of the complaint and TelSeven responded on October 31, 2006. TelSeven states that it provides national directory assistance telephone service and does not solicit long distance telephone service. We find that, based on TelSeven's response, TelSeven did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1526A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on July 18, 2006. Online Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed Online Savings TPV submitted with its response and we find that Online Savings has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1527A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on September 11, 2006. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV UTI submitted with its response and we find that UTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1528A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaint and CNB responded on October 20, 2006. CNB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). CNB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that CNB has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1529A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TNCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TNCI of the complaint and TNCI responded on October 17, 2006. In the complaint, Complainant states that Complainant switched away from TNCI in April of 2006 and that Complainant's service was switched back to TNCI in August of 2006. In its response TNCI states that it was not aware that Complainant had switched
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1530A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1530A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1530A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on January 3, 2007. ZIN states that, although it requested a copy of the third party verification (TPV) from the verifier, it has not yet received it. Thus, ZIN did not submit a TPV or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1531A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1531A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1531A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Trinsic without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Trinsic of the complaint and Trinsic responded on July 20, 2006. Trinsic states that having received approval from the Commission it acquired active Sprint local service customers when Sprint chose to exit the local market. Trinsic converted a number of those customers beginning February 1, 2006. Trinsic also states that the Complainant remained
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1533A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CenturyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on December 12, 2006. CenturyTel states that Complainant requested a CenturyTel long distance plan. CenturyTel did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CenturyTel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1534A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1534A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1534A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on February 1, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronically signed letter of agency (LOA) was processed. Horizon, however, did not submit an LOA, Horizon instead submitted confirmation e-mails which it sent to the Complainant. We find that Horizon has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1535A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1535A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1535A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on February 20, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1536A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1536A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1536A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FB Connection without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FB Connection of the complaint and FB Connection responded on August 3, 2006. FB Connection states that, due to an underlying carrier change, Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly switched. We find that FB Connection has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that FB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1537A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on January 5, 2007. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clearworld with its response and find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1538A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on February 6, 2007. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1539A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on November 30, 2006. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clearworld with its response and find that Clearworld has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1540A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on April 13, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NECC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1541A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 17, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with LDCB's response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1543A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on August 11, 2006. Excel's response stated that Complainant previously had cancelled service with Excel on February 3, 2003, and that Excel received notification from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) on May 6, 2004, to restore service. Excel states that did not bill Complainant until the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1544A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on June 12, 2006. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Cordia submitted with its response and we find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1545A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on October 4, 2006. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv's verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted intraLATA toll service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1546A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on September 29, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that LDCB has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1547A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on October 31, 2006. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that CBS submitted with its response, and we find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1558A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on August 23, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Preferred Billing submitted with its response and we find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1559A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on September 13, 2006. NetOne states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV NetOne submitted with its response and we find that NetOne has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1850A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on February 19, 2007. Cavalier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1851A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on February 14, 2007. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDA with its response and find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1852A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on March 19, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1853A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on March 6, 2007. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred Billing with its response and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1855A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on February 5, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1856A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 18, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NECC with its response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1857A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Acceris Communications (Acceris) to Cognigen without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cognigen of the complaint and Cognigen responded on March 12, 2007. Cognigen states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of authorization (LOA) was signed and processed. Cognigen states that it does not receive paper LOAs but that all orders received are through the web and are not processed until
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1858A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on December 28, 2006. MyTel states that it confirmed Complainant's choice to change service provider to MyTel, but that it was technically unable to complete the switch. We find that MyTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1859A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1859A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1859A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaints and Windstream responded. We find that, based on Windstream responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers indicating that Windstream did not submit carrier change orders, Windstream did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1860A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1860A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1860A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Windstream without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on January 23, 2007. We find that, based on Windstream response, coupled with information received from Complainant local exchange carrier indicating that Windstream did not submit a carrier change order, we find that Windstream did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1861A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1861A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1861A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on March 16, 2007. NECC admits that it submitted Complainant's telephone number to Complainant's local exchange carrier in error. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1862A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1862A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1862A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on March 6, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Spectrotel's response and we find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1865A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on February 6, 2007. CSP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CSP with its response and find that CSP's verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1866A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nationwide without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint and Nationwide responded on November 30, 2006. Nationwide states that it provides voicemail service only and is not a long distance or local service provider. Based on information received from Nationwide, we find that Nationwide did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1868A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on February 14, 2007. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that Startec's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that Startec
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1870A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on February 23, 2007. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1871A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on February 2, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1872A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on March 2, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with CNBI's response and find that the CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1873A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Coordinated Billing Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing Services of the complaint and Coordinated Billing Services responded on March 6, 2007. Coordinated Billing Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Coordinated Billing Services's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Coordinated Billing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1874A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on March 15, 2007. Cavalier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1875A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on March 28, 2007. ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ZIN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1876A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1876A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1876A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on March 19, 2007. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ATS's with its response and find that ATS's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that ATS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1877A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on April 9, 2007. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1878A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1878A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1878A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on April 5, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1880A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1880A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1880A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with the carrier's responses, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1881A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1881A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1881A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaints and Long Distance Savings responded. Long Distance Savings states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with the carrier's responses, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that Long Distance Savings has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1898A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 19, 2006. MCI states that a business customer of MCI provided Complainant's telephone number as a number that belonged to that customer, and requested the telephone number be added to the business account. MCI, however, failed to provide a copy of a signed letter
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1899A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 5, 2006. MCI states that, due to an internal error during an internal update, Complainant lost its voicemail service but no carrier change occurred. We find that, based on MCI's response, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1900A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1901A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that in each case, each Complainant changed its service provider to a reseller of MCI, and the reseller involved in each case neglected to send MCI an order requesting MCI to add the complainant's telephone number to the resale account. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1902A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1903A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Sprint states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Sprint with its responses and find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1908A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service provider(s) had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaints and Qwest responded. Based on Qwest's responses to the complaints, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), we find that Qwest's actions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1909A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OPTICOM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OPTICOM of the complaint and OPTICOM responded on April 27, 2006. OPTICOM states these calls were accessed via a 1010-access number. Opticom's FCC Form 499A Telecommunications Worksheet confirms that OPTICOM is an operator services provider. We find that OPTICOM did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1910A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on March 13, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDC filed with its response and find that LDC's verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1911A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on February 3, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that CNBI filed with its response and find that CNBI's verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1912A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. The LOAs submitted by Horizon do not contain the subscribers' telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1913A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global Crossing Telecommunications Inc. (Global) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on June 21, 2006. Global stated that it determined that ClearWorld changed Complainant's long distance service. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ClearWorld of the complaint and ClearWorld responded on December 8, 2006. ClearWorld states that authorization was received and confirmed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1914A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk of the complaint and Talk responded on July 14, 2006. Based on Talk's response, coupled with information received from the Complainant's local exchange carrier indicating that Talk America did not submit a carrier exchange order, we find that Talk did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1915A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 20, 2006. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1916A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1916A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1916A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's response, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1917A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1917A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1917A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint, and LDS responded on December 20, 2006. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1918A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2201A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on January 15, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV that LDC submitted with its response and find that LDC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2202A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 7, 2006. IDT states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with IDT's response and find that IDT's LOA did not contain, among several missing pieces of required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2203A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on September 25, 2006. The alleged unauthorized switch occurred more than two years before the date of the complaint. Carriers are not required to retain authorization for a carrier change for more than two years. We find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2204A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint, and Clear World responded on November 13, 2006. Clear World states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear World's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear World has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2205A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2206A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ECN, Inc. to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on August 3, 2006. Clear World states that it received authorization for the switch through a third party verification recording. We have reviewed the recording submitted with Clear World's response and find that the verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2207A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PAETEC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PAETEC of the complaint and PAETEC responded on February 23, 2007. PAETEC states that complainant received a phone bill for ``backbilled'' usage and at no time was Complainant's service switched by PAETEC. We then notified CTC Communications Corp. (Complainant's LEC) of the complainant and it did not indicate PAETEC switched Complainant's service. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2208A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 8, 2007. AT&T's response claimed it did not slam Complainant. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on March
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2209A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 11, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2210A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 31, 2006. AT&T's response claimed it did not slam Complainant. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on AT&T, Inc., Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2213A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cingular Wireless to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on September 8, 2006. Based on BellSouth's response (which addressed disruption of Complainant's service), we requested additional information from BellSouth, and BellSouth responded on May 1, 2007. BellSouth states that Complainant's number was ported to Cingular without what it considered a valid Local Service Request. Although
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2215A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint. Zoom has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Zoom to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Zoom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2216A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 24, 2006. Qwest states in its response that it has an established partnership with BellSouth to offer long distance services, and service was therefore, established with BellSouth. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2217A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to Focal Communications (Focal) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Focal, the local exchange carrier for Complainant. Focal referred the complaint to Broadwing Communications LLC (Broadwing). Broadwing submitted a response on September 6, 2006, on behalf of Brivia Communications, a reseller of Broadwing. Broadwing in its response states that Brivia uses the name of TomatoVine, Inc. in its marketing and service providing efforts.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2218A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint. U.S. Telecom has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of U.S. Telecom to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that U.S. Telecom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2219A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OSBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Official Small Business Association of the complaint and OSBA responded on February 15, 2007. OSBA has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by OSBA in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2220A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Line Systems without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line Systems of the complaint. Line System has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Line Systems to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Line Systems's actions resulted in unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2223A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq Communications (Embarq) to CSP Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP Telecom of the complaint and CSP Telecom responded on October 23, 2006. CSP Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification(TPV). We have reviewed the TPB submitted by CPS Telecom with its response and find that CSP Telecom's verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2224A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Windstream without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on December 6, 2006. Windstream's response stated that Complainant previously had service with AllTel since 1999 and AllTel wireless spun its wireline business into its own company, Windstream, on July 17, 2006. Windstream then moved this account into its wireline billing system on June 4, 2006,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2225A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Talk America responded on December 19, 2006. Talk America stated that Complainant previously had service with it, but the account was archived due to inactivity. However, when and one call was made over its network, it resulted in a new account for billing purposes. We then notified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2240A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ACN Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 28, 2006. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2241A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on November 21, 2006. Qwest states in its response that service was established by an email request from BellSouth. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on April 24, 2007. BellSouth admits in its response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2242A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 27, 2006. Qwest states in its response that service for the Complainant was established by an email from BellSouth. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on May 10, 2007. BellSouth states in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2243A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on January 31, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV MyTel filed with its response and find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2244A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on January 30, 2007. NECC has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by NECC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2245A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 25, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on December 11, 2006. MyTel has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MyTel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2246A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on January 8, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel's verifier marketed the carrier's services in violation of our rules. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2247A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on January 16, 2007. NECC states that the account was authorized and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required by our rules. We find that NECC has
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2248A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONE Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONE Touch of the complaint and ONE Touch responded on September 20, 2006. ONE Touch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV and find that ONE Touch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier changes by Complainant. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2262A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. NSB states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NSB filed with its responses and find that NSB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changed by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NSB's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2267A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2267A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2267A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 25, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T Complainant's local exchange carrier of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 22, 2007. AT&T's response indicates that it received a carrier change order from Qwest. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 14, 2007. Qwest's response indicates that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2268A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2269A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISC of the complaint and ISC responded on March 19, 2007. ISC's response states it provides its customers with an 800 access number to call their operator platform for interstate and international calling, 800 access numbers are not covered by our carrier change rules. We have reviewed ISC's response and agree that ISC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2270A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2270A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2270A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on January 10, 2007. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV filed with U. S. Telecom's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that U.S. Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2271A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2271A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2271A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint and Americatel responded on February 28, 2007. Americatel's response states it provided Complainant with a dial-around subscription plan. We have reviewed Americatel's response and agree that Americatel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2272A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 26, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that Startec's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2303A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint, and VarTec responded on January 10, 2007. VarTec states that it did not change Complainant's service provider and that it only charged complainant for dial-around calls. Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, was notified of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 30, 2007. Verizon confirmed that Complainant's service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2316A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2317A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2318A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs and find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions did not result in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2319A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 1, 2007. Sprint states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. We then notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 29, 2007. Verizon states that Complainant's service was switched as a result of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2352A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint. Advantage has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Advantage to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2353A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 23, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on March 29, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2354A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UMCC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaints. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss UMCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2421A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to UMCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaint. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2422A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Talk America to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 6, 2006. Based on AT&T's response, we served the complaint on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Stratus Wave Communications (Stratus). Stratus responded on February 2, 2007. We find that based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from Stratus, AT&T did not violate our carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2423A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 22, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2430A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UMCC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaints. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss UMCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2431A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UMCC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaints. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss UMCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2434A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2435A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 12, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 25, 2007. Sprint states that Complainant's service was established in June 2005 and cancelled the following month. Sprint also states that it appears Complainant's line remained connected to Sprint's network, and the disputed calls were routed to Sprint on a ``casual toll'' basis. Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2436A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 3, 2006. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2437A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 10, 2006. Based on MCI's response, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2438A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 10, 2007. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2439A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 18, 2006. We find that, based on MCI's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2440A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 30, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2441A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NOS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint and NOS responded on January 25, 2007. NOS states that authorization was received and confirmed when it received several signed letters of agency (LOAs). We have reviewed the LOAs submitted by NOS with its response and find that NOS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2446A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to RRLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaints. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss RRLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2497A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on March 7, 2007. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed when an letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Cavalier's response and find that Cavalier's LOA did not contain information for the sole purpose of authorizing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2498A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on May 1, 2007. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleUno's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that TeleUno has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2499A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on May 20, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDC's response, and we find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2500A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on May 23, 2007. LDC admits in its response that, due to a computer or keying error it switched Complainant's service back to LDC. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2501A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on April 20, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Spectrotel's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2502A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telecircuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telecircuit of the complaint and Telecircuit responded on April 10, 2007. Telecircuit states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Telecircuit with its response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Telecircuit has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2503A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Coordinated Billing Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing Services of the complaint and Coordinated Billing Services responded on April 19, 2007. Coordinated Billing Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Coordinated Billing Services's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Coordinated Billing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2504A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on April 17, 2007. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2505A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk America of the complaint and Cavalier Telephone responded on behalf of Talk America on May 3, 2007. Talk America did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Talk America has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2506A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on May 14, 2007. CSP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CSP's response, and we find that CSP's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2507A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2007, alleging that BellSouth initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on March 7, 2007. BellSouth states that it established new local and long distance service for the Complainant. New service is not covered by our carrier change rules. Based on information received from BellSouth, we find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2508A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on May 9, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2510A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on May 2, 2007. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2511A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance America of the complaint and Long Distance America responded on April 26, 2007. Long Distance America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Long Distance America's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Long Distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2512A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on April 25, 2007. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LSI's response, and we find that LSI's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2513A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 8, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2515A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 17, 2007. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with BNLD's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2516A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Long Distance America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance America of the complaint and Long Distance America responded on May 22, 2007. Long Distance America states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Long Distance America's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2524A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to TDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TDS of the complaints and TDS responded. TDS states that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOAs filed with TDS's responses and find that TDS's LOAs did not contain information for the sole purpose of authorizing a telecommunications carrier to initiate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-252A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on October 31, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NECC's response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-253A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on November 19, 2006. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with BNLD's response and find that BNLD's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-254A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 11, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-255A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 12, 2006. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-256A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on April 24, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NECC's response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-257A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaints and CNBI responded. CNBI indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted with CNBI's responses and find that, in each case, CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2587A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Horizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2591A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 8, 2007. AT&T submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. We have reviewed the LOA and find that the LOA is not signed and dated by the subscriber, as required by our rules. Consequently, we find that AT&T
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2592A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 20, 2007. AT&T states it did not obtain a letter of agency (LOA) from Complainant as proof of authorization for the switch but received a LOA from a new business customer providing Complainant's telephone numbers as part of the LOA in error. We have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2593A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 7, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Cox, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on May 24, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2598A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Windstream Communications to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2599A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Horizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-259A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint and Embarq responded on December 21, 2006. Embarq did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Embarq has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Embarq's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-260A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WDT Global Crossing (WDT) to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on December 21, 2006. ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ZIN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-261A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 18, 2006. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NECC with its response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2622A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VarTec Telecom, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 14, 2007. AT&T states that it did not change the Complainant's phone service. From the information received from AT&T, it appears that the calls made by Complainant were operated assisted calls and, therefore, did not relate to a change of Complainant's service. Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2623A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BellSouth Telecommunications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 7, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2624A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Windstream to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on April 2, 2007. MSTC states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted with MSTC's response and find that MSTC's LOA does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2625A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 22, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on June 8, 2007. Based on AT&T's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2626A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-262A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-262A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-262A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 13, 2006. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with Silv's response and find that Silv failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2630A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2630A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2630A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 22, 2007. MCI admits that it routed Complainant's service over MCI's network instead of Complainant's preferred carrier's network. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2631A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2631A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2631A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from 011 Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on March 9, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2632A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 22, 2006. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2633A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 20, 2006. Sprint states that Complainant's service was established when Sprint detected usage being routed across its network. Sprint, however, failed to provide either a third party verification (TPV) or a signed letter of agency (LOA), as required by our rules. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2634A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2634A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2634A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-263A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-263A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-263A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint and Telrite responded on January 3, 2007. Telrite states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was inadvertently switched. We find that Telrite has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Telrite's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2641A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on May 11, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2642A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint, and Americatel responded on March 28, 2007. Americatel states that there was no slam of Complainant's service because the matter involves a dial-around subscription. We notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint, and Verizon responded on May 10, 2007. Verizon states it has not received a change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-264A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-264A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-264A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on December 26, 2006. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed voicemail service during the verification process in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-265A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-265A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-265A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 14, 2006. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that Startec's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2693A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 19, 2007. Qwest states that it received a carrier initiated request from TeleUno, Inc. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on February 9, 2007. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2869A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2894A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint, and Primus responded on March 5, 2007. Primus states that there was no slam of Complainant's service because there was not a PIC order sent to the Complainant's local exchange carrier. We notified Embarq, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint, and Embarq responded on June 11, 2007. Embarq
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2895A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on March 7, 2007. BellSouth admits in its response that, due to an inadvertent BellSouth keying error, Complainant's service was switched to BellSouth. We find that BellSouth has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BellSouth's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2896A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on June 19, 2007. New Century did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2897A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Windstream without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on April 25, 2007. Windstream has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Windstream in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2898A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on May 20, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2899A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Level 3 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Level 3 of the complaint and Level 3 responded on June 6, 2007. Level 3 has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Level 3 in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2900A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on June 7, 2007. New Century did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2901A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Coordinated Billing Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Coordinated Billing Services of the complaint and Coordinated Billing Services responded on June 14, 2007. Coordinated Billing Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Coordinated Billing Services's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Coordinated Billing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2902A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on June 20, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2903A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on June 19, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2905A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, contain an inducement and do not contain an electronic signature in violation of the Commission's rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2906A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on June 8, 2007. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Reduced Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2960A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2961A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOAs Horizon filed with its response. Among other missing required information, Horizon's LOAs, do not contain electronic signatures, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2962A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on March 13, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC with its response and find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2963A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nexus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nexus of the complaint and Nexus responded on April 6, 2007. Although Nexus sent copies of information it said it received from Complainant, Nexus did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Nexus has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2964A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on May 8, 2007. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LSI with its response and find that LSI's verifier failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2965A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing Communications LLC (Broadwing) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on March 20, 2007. Broadwing states that Complainant's service was switched by Broadwing reseller, Silv. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 19, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2966A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on March 30, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MyTel's response, and find that MyTel's verifier marketed MyTel services, in violation of our rules. We find that MyTel has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2967A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 29, 2007. Verizon's response states that AT&T sent an electronic care feed requesting that the customer's regional toll and long distance service be changed to AT&T. Verizon also states it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant due to non-payment for over
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2969A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on April 1, 2007. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response and find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2970A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on March 20, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2971A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on March 20, 2007. We find that, based on Broadwing's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Broadwing did not change complaint's service provider. Therefore, we find that Broadwing did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2972A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Windstream without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on March 5, 2007. We find that, based on Windstream's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier which did not show Windstream submitting a carrier change order, we find that Windstream did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2973A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Matrix without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Matrix of the complaint and Matrix responded on April 4, 2007. We find that, based on Matrix's response, Complainant's acknowlegment that Matrix was its telecommunications service provider at the time services were rendered, and an apparent billing error, we find that Matrix did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2974A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on February 21, 2007. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TeleDias with its response and find that TeleDias has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3050A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on February 26, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3051A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 25, 2007. Long distance service is comprised of domestic inerLATA service and international service. Thus, a subscriber cannot agree to have only domestic long distance but not international service. We have reviewed the third party verification (TPV) submitted by Sprint and find the following.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3056A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2007, alleging that AT&T initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 22, 2007. AT&T states that it did not change Complainant's service provider and that it only charged complainant for dial-around calls. We then notified Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) of the complaint and AT&T's response. Based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3057A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2007, alleging that Sprint initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 15, 2007. Sprint states that it received a carrier change order from its reseller World Link Solutions (World Link) and there was a delay on World Link's part in adding Complainant's information into its customer database which caused customers account to default to Sprint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3058A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2007, alleging that Sprint initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 6, 2007. Sprint states that it did not change Complainant's service provider and that it only charged complainant for dial-around calls. Based on information received from Sprint, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3059A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 23, 2007. AT&T's response, inter alia, states that it is providing a copy of an electronic letter of agency (ELOA) signed by Complainant and received by AT&T on November 17, 2006, as authorization for the switch of Complainant's service. AT&T's response also indicates that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3060A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 13, 2007. We find that, based on MCI's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier which did not show MCI submitting a carrier change order, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3065A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on May 22, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with CNBI's response and find that CNBI's TPV failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3101A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3101A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3101A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 1, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 1, 2007. Sprint states that Complainant's preferred carrier, a reseller of Sprint services, had not properly established an account for Complainant such that when the service order was received from Complainant's local exchange carrier it appeared to be a request for Sprint services and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3102A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3102A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3102A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 12, 2007. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3104A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3104A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3104A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 5, 2007. Cordia's response claimed it did not slam Complainant. Based on Cordia's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Cordia's response on Verizon the Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3213A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on June 6, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Spectrotel's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3215A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3216A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on May 22, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3224A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 19, 2007. We find that, based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier which did not show Qwest submitting a carrier change order, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3225A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint and Telrite responded on February 26, 2007. Telrite states in 2004, it acquired Complainant's account in an asset purchase from OneStar Long Distance, Inc. and, thus, it does not have sign-up confirmation as a result of purchasing the account from a distressed seller. We then notified Complainant's local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3226A1.txt
  • the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, no later than 30 days before the planned transfer, a letter notification in CC Docket 00-257 that meets the requirements listed in Section 64.1120 (e)(1) of our rules, including proper customer notice. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaints and UMCC responded. UMCC, however, failed to file such letter with the Commission. We find that UMCC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss UMCC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3227A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on April 24, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel's verifier, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3228A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on April 27, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3229A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on April 11, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel's verifier marketed MyTel services during the verification process, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3230A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on June 29, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Among other missing required information, Horizon's LOA does not contain an electronic signature, as required by our rules. Consequently, we find that Horizon has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3231A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on May 1, 2007. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cox with its response and find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3232A1.txt
  • the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on June 30, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier, NECC Telecom, Inc. (NECC), to ACN Communications Services, Inc. (ACN) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified ACN of the complaint. In response, ACN stated that it did not initiate the change in service but that the account was switched to ACN ``via a self pic.'' Based on ACN's response, the Division notified Verizon (Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC)) of the complaint. In response, Verizon provided a history
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3233A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on October 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Time Warner Cable (Time Warner) to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Embarq of the complaint. In its response, Embarq stated that a new service order requested by Complainant was processed effective August 31, 2006, and that the order noted Complainant needed service as soon as possible. Embarq states that Complainant contacted it on September 18, 2006, and advised he did not authorize
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3257A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Alliance Group Services Inc., (Alliance) and Alliance responded on February 28, 2007. Alliance stated that the change was requested by CNBI. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint, and CNBI responded on May 1, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3258A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Nexus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nexus of the complaint and Nexus responded on June 14, 2007. Nexus's response states that the Complainant contacted Nexus for new services. We have reviewed Nexus's response and agree that Nexus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3272A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3272A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3272A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3273A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3273A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3273A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on June 11, 2007. Horizon's response states that it is providing a copy of an electronic letter of agency (ELOA) received by Horizon on October 9, 2006, as authorization for the switch of Complainant's service. We have reviewed the ELOA and observe that the ELOA does
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3274A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3274A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3274A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 12, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on BellSouth, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on June 15, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3275A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3275A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3275A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 8, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on BellSouth, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on June 15, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3276A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3276A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3276A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 12, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Embarq Communications, Inc., Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on June 14, 2007. Based on AT&T's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3277A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3277A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3277A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 18, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on June 11, 2007. Based on AT&T's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3278A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 12, 2007. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 8, 2007. Verizon's response states that it delayed its processing of the service request by Complainant by four
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-335A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on January 5, 2005 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IT&E Overseas to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Qwest of the complaint. In its response, Qwest referred the Division to Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Verizon of the complaint. In its response, Verizon stated that the order for Complainant's service was incorrectly processed due to a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-341A1.txt
  • carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on June 25, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, CGB notified Americatel of the complaint. In response, Americatel stated that Complainant ``received invoices in error.'' The Bureau found that Americatel failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change and, therefore, that Americatel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider. Americatel sought reconsideration of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3420A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 16, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3421A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on June 26, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3422A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 15, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that AT&T's verifier failed to elicit the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3426A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on July 2, 2007. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with BNLD's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3427A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on July 16, 2007. VZLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with VZLD's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that VZLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3428A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint, and Excel responded on April 12, 2007. Based on Excel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Excel's response on AT&T, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on May 10, 2007. Based on Excel's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3429A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint, and NECC responded on May 30, 2007. Based on NECC's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and NECC's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on July 9, 2007. Based on NECC's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3430A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on June 28, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3431A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 7, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3432A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 28, 2007. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Our rules allow a sales representative to remain on the line during a verification if the carrier has certified it technically is incapable of dropping off; however, final verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3433A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on July 13, 2007. MetTel states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Among other missing required information, MetTel's LOA does not state that the subscriber may consult with the carrier as to whether a fee would apply to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3434A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on June 28, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3435A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VoiceNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VoiceNet of the complaint, and VoiceNet responded on June 28, 2007. VoiceNet states that there was no slam of Complainant's service because the matter involves a dial-around service. We, therefore, find that VoiceNet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3436A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on July 12, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3437A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 16, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response and find that NLDS's verifier failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3438A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 9, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3439A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 28, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3440A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on June 29, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UAT's response, and we find that UAT's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. Confirmation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3441A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaints and Reduced Rate responded. Reduced Rate states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Reduced Rate with its responses and find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3446A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on March 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Horizon without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3447A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on April 18, 2007. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3448A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 23, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3449A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on May 3, 2007. ACN states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by ACN and find that the LOA did not contain a legible date, as required by our rules. Consequently, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-344A1.txt
  • those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 1, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company to Cinergy without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Cinergy of the complaint. Cinergy responded that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Division found that Cinergy's verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by the Commission's rules and, therefore, that Cinergy's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3450A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing Communications LLC (Broadwing) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint and Broadwing responded on June 8, 2007. Broadwing states that Complainant's service was switched by Broadwing's reseller, Silv. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 28, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3451A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on May 20, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3452A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 15, 2007. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response and find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3453A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UMCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaint and UMCC responded on June 11, 2007. UMCC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that UMCC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3454A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3454A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3454A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IQ Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IQ Tel of the complaint and IQ Tel responded on May 7, 2007. IQ Tel states that it was in the middle of a mass conversion in its system that was conducted by hand when Complainant's telephone number was accidentally typed into IQ Tel's system. We find that IQ Tel has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3455A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Our review of the LOAs Horizon filed with its responses, indicates that Horizon's LOAs contain an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3456A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3456A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3456A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Our review the LOAs Horizon filed with its responses indicates that Horizon's LOAs, contain inducements, in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3459A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 29, 2007. MCI states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T. We then notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 29, 2007. AT&T states that the changes made to Complainant's service were initiated by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-345A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 13, 2003, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Communications (AT&T) to ITC^DeltaCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified ITC^DeltaCom of the complaint. In its response, ITC^DeltaCom submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of the switch. The Division found that the LOA did not contain Complainant's telephone number as required by the Commission's rules, and therefore, that ITC^DeltaCom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3460A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' local toll had been changed from their authorized carriers to MyTel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaints and MyTel responded. MyTel indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV's MyTel filed with its responses and find that, in each case, however, MyTel's verifier marketed carrier services, in violation our rules. MyTel has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3461A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. NSB states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NSB filed with its responses and find that NSB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NSB's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3462A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Verizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon states that Complainants authorized the change in services. Verizon, however, failed to provide third party verification tapes or letter of agencies as required by our rules. Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Verizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3463A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3464A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on July 3, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3465A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on May 20, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 17, 2007. MCI states that an MCI reseller, Affinity, initiated the order. Affinity is Complainant's authorized carrier. It appears that Affinity changed its facilities-based carrier from Qwest to MCI, resulting in a carrier change charge on Complainant's bill. This charge does not, however, signify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-346A1.txt
  • carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on November 21, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Privasafe without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Privasafe of the complaint. In its response, Privasafe stated that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. In the Division Order, the Division found that Privasafe's electronic LOA did not contain an electronic signature, as required by the Commission's rules and, therefore, found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-347A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on August 2, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, CGB notified Sprint of the complaint. In its response, Sprint stated that it verified Complainant's order using third party verification (TPV), and it provided a recording of that verification. In the Division Order, the Division determined that Complainant did not respond to the verifier's query as to whether Complainant wanted to switch his service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3487A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on June 27, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDC's response, and we find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-348A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on November 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Complainant provided a telephone bill showing carrier change charges for a switch on October 5, 2004, to Sprint ``or a company that resells services of SPRINT.'' Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaint. Sprint responded on January 3, 2005, stating that Complainant is a customer of a Sprint reseller, TNCI, and is not a Sprint customer. Per Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified TNCI of the complaint. The Division also
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3499A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on July 30, 2007. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-349A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on May 24, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint. In response, Acceris submitted a letter of agency (LOA), signed electronically, as proof of authorization of the switch. The LOA, however, failed to confirm that only one telecommunications carrier may be designated as the subscriber's preferred intraLATA carrier for any one telephone number and, moreover, two digits of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-350A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on January 23, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Verizon of the complaint. In its response, Verizon stated that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification (TPV). The Division found that Verizon's TPV required the subscriber to provide authorization by pressing digits on the subscriber's telephone in response to verification questions. The Division Order pointed out that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-351A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 11, 2002, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, CGB notified Verizon of the complaint. In response, Verizon stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV) and that it was providing an audio record of the TPV and a written transcript of the recording. The Division determined that the recording provided was not functional and, thus, that it could not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3522A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3522A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3522A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 14, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on August 1, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3651A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on June 27, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC with its response and find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3653A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint. Embarq has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Embarq to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Embarq's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3654A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on May 17, 2007. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by SBA with its response and find that SBA's verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3655A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on June 29, 2007. CRC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CRC's response and we find that CRC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3656A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on June 29, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency was signed and processed (LOA). We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon with its response and find that Horizon's LOA contains an inducement in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3657A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on July 12, 2007. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cavalier's response, and find that Cavalier's automated verifier marketed Cavalier services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3658A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Enhanced Communications Group, LLC to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 17, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3659A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 14, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on BellSouth, Complainant's local exchange carrier, and BellSouth responded on July 12, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3660A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 5, 2007. AT&T states in its response that a third party verification is not on file, since the Complainant made the change on line through to AT&T website. AT&T has not submitted because a third party verification or a letter of agency as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3661A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to UMCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaint. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3663A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3674A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3674A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3674A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on July 11, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI's verifier did not confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3716A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 9, 2007. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3717A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. Upon review of MCI's responses, which included MCI submitting third party verification (TPV) recordings, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each TPV recording gave an incorrect name was beyond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3731A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3732A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3732A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3732A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 31, 2007. AT&T states in its response that service for the Complainant was routed to AT&T's network by a routing or switch error from the customer's local phone company, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3733A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that AT&T's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3742A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3743A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on July 17, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Spectrotel's response and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. The
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3744A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on August 3, 2007. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NECC's response and find that the NECC's verifier marketed the carrier's services by providing additional information regarding preferred carrier freeze procedures,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3745A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3750A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on June 26, 2007. Excel admits in its response that, due to an inadvertent Excel keying error, Complainant's service was switched to Excel. We find that Excel has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Excel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3751A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on May 24, 2007. Excel has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Excel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3752A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CBS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaints and CBS responded. CBS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs CBS submitted with its responses and find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 1, 2007. Qwest states that Complainant's service was switched due to an order entry error. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3762A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 31, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3770A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on June 13, 2007. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response. We find that, with regard to Complainant's additional telephone number, RRLD did not confirm that Complainant was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3771A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on May 22, 2007. IDT has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by IDT in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3774A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on August 3, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MyTel's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3775A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint, and Cavalier responded on May 1, 2007. Cavalier states that it rejected repeated requests to switch the Complainant's service for several months because distinctive ring numbers were included in the switch request. Cavalier, however, provided no reason why it could not have switched the Complainant's non-distinctive numbers. The rejection
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3777A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded on August 16, 2007. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3778A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on August 14, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-378A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on April 10, 2006. We find that Cox did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-379A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-380A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on November 29, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that a valid authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-381A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on December 11, 2006. ACN states in its response that it is unable to provide a copy of the consumer's letter of agency (LOA) as required by our carrier change rules. Consequently, we find that ACN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3839A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3839A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3839A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to NLDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with NLDS's responses and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-384A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3856A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 7, 2007. Sprint states that the Complainant's telephone number was erroneously provided to Sprint for another customer's account. Sprint did not provide any evidence that the other customer included Complainant's number on a carrier change request. We find that Sprint has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-385A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CBS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaints and CBS responded. CBS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by CBS with its responses and find that CBS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-386A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MyTel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaints and MyTel responded. MyTel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs MyTel submitted with its responses and find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-387A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on January 8, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel's verifier marketed the carrier's services in violation of our rules. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-388A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on December 12, 2006. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with LDS's response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-389A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on December 28, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred Billing with its response and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-390A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on December 15, 2006. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with ATS's response and find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-392A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on November 22, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with Preferred Billing's response and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-395A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on December 14, 2006. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with Preferred Billing's response and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-398A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BSLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BSLD of the complaint and BSLD responded on December 4, 2006. BSLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with BSLD's response and find that BSLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Buzz without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Buzz of the complaint and Buzz responded on October 30, 2006. Buzz states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Buzz submitted with its response and find that Buzz has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4041A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4041A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4041A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Horizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4042A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4043A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on August 24, 2007. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ZIN's response, and we find that ZIN's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4044A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4044A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4044A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT states that authorizations were received and confirm through third party verification (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NCT filed with its responses and find that, in each case, NCT's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4045A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4045A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4045A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaints and Spectrotel responded. Spectrotel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Spectrotel with its responses and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4046A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4046A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4046A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, contain an inducement and do not contain an electronic signature in violation of the Commission's rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4047A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4047A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4047A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightyear Network Solutions, LLC (Lightyear) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightyear of the complaint and Lightyear responded on May 25, 2007. Lightyear states it did not submit an order to change Complainant's telecommunications carrier, but that it was sent to it electronically by Lightyear's underlying carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4048A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4048A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4048A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 31, 2007. We find that, based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4049A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4049A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4049A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 19, 2007. Qwest states it received preferred interchange carrier (PIC) confirmation to switch Complainant's service from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC). We then notified Complainant's LEC of the complaint and Qwest's response. Based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4050A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Working Assets Long Distance (WALD) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WALD of the complaint and WALD responded on May 2, 2007. WALD states that Complainant's telecommunications service was switched due to an error by its underlying carrier Sprint Nextel. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Nextel of the complaint and Sprint Nextel responded on June 23, 2007.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4051A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4051A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4051A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Horizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4052A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Horizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4053A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 25, 2007. Verizon admits in its response that, due to an inadvertent Verizon error, Complainant's toll and long distance were not removed promptly. The delay of the carrier change request caused an unreasonable delay in the execution of the switch in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4054A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 26, 2007. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4055A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4056A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on August 22, 2007. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ZIN's response, and we find that ZIN's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4057A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 26, 2007. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4058A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on August 28, 2007. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cox's response, and we find that Cox's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4059A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 17, 2007. MCI states it did not slam Complainant and explains that the charges placed on Complainant's monthly statement were due to seven collect calls that were accepted at the Complainant's telephone number. Based on MCI's response, we find that MCI did not violate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4060A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Communications Company (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and sprint responded on June 14, 2007. Sprint states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T, Inc. (AT&T). We then notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 28, 2007. AT&T states that the changes made to Complainant's service were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4061A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on September 6, 2007. ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ZIN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4062A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 17, 2007. MCI only states when Complainant's service was disconnected from MCI's network and does not address when or how Complainant became a MCI customer. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4063A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 23, 2007. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4064A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACS of the complaint and ACS responded on September 10, 2007. ACS admits that Complainant's service was changed due to a provisioning error made by its representative. We find that ACS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACS' actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4065A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Embarq without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaints and Embarq responded. Embarq states that in each case, there were system errors due to the shared long distance system resulting in unauthorized changes. Embarq also admits that the Complainants were switched to carriers other than the carrier of choice. Embarq has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4066A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint, and Cavalier responded on July 16, 2007. Based on Cavalier's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Cavalier's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on August 20, 2007. Based on Cavalier's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4067A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on August 31, 2007. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel's with its response and find that Spectrotel's verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4068A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 30, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4069A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4069A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4069A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 23, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that Silv's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4070A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4070A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4070A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on September 10, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4071A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint. Reduced Rate has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Reduced Rate to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Reduced Rate's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4072A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 27, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that Silv's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4081A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 11, 2007. AT&T states in its response that this complaint involved a routing error by the customer's local phone company, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 6, 2007. Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4082A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on August 10, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through an electronic letter of agency (ELOA). We have reviewed the ELOA filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4083A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 13, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4084A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 14, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on August 16, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4085A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4087A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4088A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4088A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4088A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Zoom-i-Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom-i-Net of the complaint and Zoom-i-Net responded on April 12, 2007. Zoom-i-Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Zoom-i-Net with its response and find that Zoom-i-Net's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4089A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4089A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4089A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4091A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4091A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4091A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on May 24, 2007. Comcast has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Comcast in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4092A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4092A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4092A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4100A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4100A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4100A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on August 21, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MyTel's response and we find that MyTel's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4140A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on April 11, 2007. VZLD has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by VZLD in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4141A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 30, 2007. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on BellSouth, and BellSouth responded on August 14, 2007. BellSouth states that the switch had occurred when Complainant's telephone number was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4142A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint, and IDT responded on April 16, 2007. Based on IDT's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier we find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 27, 2007. Qwest has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4144A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneTouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneTouch of the complaint and OneTouch responded on June 6, 2007. OneTouch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneTouch's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that OneTouch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4145A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint. Advantage has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Advantage to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Advantage's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4147A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 12, 2007. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4155A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-437A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-438A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4397A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on July 23, 2007. Sage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Sage's response, and we find that Sage's verifier failed to confirm a switch of interLATA service, in violation of our rules. While
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4398A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint. Reduced Rate has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Reduced Rate to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Reduced Rate's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4399A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4400A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Accxx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint and Accxx responded. Accxx states that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service during database processing changes. Accxx has not submitted third party verifications or letters of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants' authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4401A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4402A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on September 28, 2007. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneLink's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that OneLink has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4403A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint and Accxx responded on October 3, 2007. Accxx states that Complainant's telecommunications service provider was switched to Accxx in the process of database change which caused Complainant's old account to be re-activated. Accxx did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4404A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on October 15, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4405A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 18, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4406A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4407A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on August 6, 2007. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NECC with its response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4408A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 19, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response and find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4409A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on July 19, 2007. BNLD admits that a clerical error caused Complainant's telephone number to be switched. We find that BNLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-440A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. MCI states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were established and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPVs which MCI submitted with its responses. We find that, in each case, the verifier provided additional information marketing the carrier's services, in violation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4410A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UMCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UMCC of the complaint. UMCC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of UMCC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that UMCC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4411A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONE Touch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONE Touch of the complaint. ONE Touch has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ONE Touch to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ONE Touch's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4412A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network Connections without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Connections of the complaint. Network Connections has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Network Connections to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Network Connections's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4413A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on September 4, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4414A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on August 31, 2007. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TeleUno with its response and find that TeleUno has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4416A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 13, 2007. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response and find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4417A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on October 12, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4418A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on September 26, 2007. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4419A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 24, 2007. Cavalier admits that Complainant did not complete the third party verification due to a clerical data entry error, but the sales process continued and Complainant's service was switched. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-441A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 22, 2006. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MCI and find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4420A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on June 28, 2007. Online Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Online Savings with its response and find that Online Savings failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4421A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on August 31, 2007. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). However, Cavalier admits that it has been unable to locate the TPV. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4423A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4423A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4423A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 8, 2007. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cavalier with its response and find that Cavalier's verifier marketed Cavalier's preferred carrier freeze option, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4424A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on June 22, 2007. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TeleUno with its response and find that TeleUno has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4425A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on September 14, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon with its response and find that it contains an inducement, in violation of our rules, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4426A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4426A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4426A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on October 11, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon with its response and find that it contains an inducement, in violation of our rules, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4427A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on August 14, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Horizon's electronic LOA, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4428A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 14, 2007. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response, and we find that NCT's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4429A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 17, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4430A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tele Circuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Circuit of the complaint and Tele Circuit responded on June 19, 2007. Tele Circuit states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Tele Circuit with its response and find that Tele Circuit has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4431A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Primo without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaints and Primo responded. Primo did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. Primo has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primo's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4432A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT states that authorizations were received and confirm through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NCT filed with its responses and find that, in each case, NCT's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4433A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ACCXX without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACCXX of the complaints and ACCXX responded. ACCXX states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched to ACCXX in the process of data base changes which caused old accounts to be re-activated. ACCXX has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that ACCXX's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4436A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to ACCXX without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACCXX of the complaints and ACCXX responded. ACCXX states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were mistakenly switched due to a process of data base changes that caused old accounts to be re-activated. ACCXX has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ACCXX's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4437A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4437A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4437A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 13, 2007. Cavalier states Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4438A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4438A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4438A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on September 14, 2007. Cavalier states Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error made by one of its sales representatives. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4439A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4439A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4439A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on September 13, 2007. Qwest states Complainant's service was switched due to an error made by one of its customer service representatives. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4440A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4440A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4440A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on June 25, 2007. Cox states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA that Cox submitted with its response. Cox's LOA contains authorization for local and intraLATA services but not for interLATA service. Consequently,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4441A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4441A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4441A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on August 1, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that Clear Rate's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4442A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on July 5, 2007. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with U.S. Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that U.S. Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4443A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on July 19, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that Clear Rate's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4444A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to New Century Telecom, Inc. without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century Telecom, Inc. of the complaints and New Century Telecom, Inc. responded. New Century Telecom, Inc. states that Complainants authorized the change in services. New Century Telecom, Inc., however in both cases, failed to provide third party verification tapes or letter of agencies as required by our rules. New Century Telecom, Inc.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4445A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by BNLD with its responses and find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4446A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaints and Clear Rate responded. Clear Rate states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Clear Rate with its responses and find that Clear Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4447A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4448A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that in each case, Silv's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4462A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2007. AT&T states in its response that service for the Complainant was billed for direct-dialed calls, therefore, someone in the residence was dialing an AT&T access code or the local exchange carrier was experiencing primary interexchange carrier failure. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4463A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2007. AT&T states in its response that service for the Complainant was changed as the result of an order from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4464A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4465A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 29, 2007. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4467A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 13, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on August 10, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint. Accxx has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Accxx to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4762A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint. Reduced Rate has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Reduced Rate to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Reduced Rate's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4763A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4764A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on November 13, 2007. NetOne did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NetOne has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NetOne's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4765A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on October 23, 2007. New Century did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4766A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on November 13, 2007. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4767A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on November 5, 2007. Main Street states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Main Street's response and find that Main Street's LOA did not contain, information,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4768A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint. Reduced Rate has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Reduced Rate to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Reduced Rate's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4769A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4770A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on November 13, 2007. New Century did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4771A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on October 19, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4772A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ANL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANL of the complaint and ANL responded on November 20, 2007. ANL states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ANL's response, and we find that ANL's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4773A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaints and Reduced Rate responded. Reduced Rate states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Reduced Rate with its responses. Although Complainants agreed to switch their intraLATA service, the verifier, in each case, described intraLATA service as ``in-state
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4774A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4775A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Accxx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaints. Accxx has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Accxx to respond or provide proof of the verifications within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of vi olations. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4777A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 29, 2007. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on September 25, 2007. We find that, based on AT&T's response, coupled with information received from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4778A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Accxx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaints. Accxx has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Accxx to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Accxx's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4779A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. AT&T states in its response that due to a data processing error, it inadvertently neglected to include the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) on the ASR order. As a result, the local exchange carrier did not open the reseller's CIC(s) and calls were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4780A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on October 26, 2007. NCT states in its response that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). NCT is unable to provide the TPV as required by our rules. Consequently, we find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4781A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 11, 2007. AT&T states that the Complainant's interLATA service was switched by an order from the local exchange carrier (LEC), Embarq. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint and Embarq responded on August 2, 2007. Embarq
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4782A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with the carrier's responses, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 11, 2007. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4786A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on May 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint. The Division found that Embarq failed to respond to the complaint. The Division stated that the failure of Embarq to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation and, therefore, found that Embarq's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4787A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 26, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified SBC of the complaint. In its response, SBC stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division reviewed the TPV and found that more than one individual responded to the questions asked by the third-party verifier, and that the TPV did not contain a complete verification
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4789A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on March 2, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Globcom, Inc. to SBC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified SBC of the complaint. In its response, SBC stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division reviewed the TPV and found that SBC's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber as required by the Commission's rules and, therefore, that SBC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4791A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Accxx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaints and Accxx responded. Accxx states that Complainants' telephone numbers were switched in error by Accxx. Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Accxx's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4792A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Virtual without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Virtual of the complaint Virtual has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Virtual to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that Virtual has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4793A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 25, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on September 11, 2007. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cox's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4794A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZPDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZPDI of the complaint and ZPDI responded on June 27, 2007. We find that ZPDI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4795A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Specrotel of the complaints and Specrotel responded. Specrotel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that Specrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Specrotel's actions did not result in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4796A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint, and OneLink responded on June 8, 2007. Based on OneLink's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and OneLink's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on July 9, 2007. Based on OneLink's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4799A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on November 7, 2007. Horizon states that Complainants telecommunications service provider was switched via the customers signing up via the internet. We have reviewed Horizon's letter of authorization (LOA) filed with Horizon's response and find that Horizon's LOA, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4800A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 21, 2007. Upon review of Silv's response, we find that Silv has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4801A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on November 20, 2007. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Zoom, however, was not able to provide a recorded copy of the TPV. We find that Zoom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4803A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on September 19, 2007. NECC states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NECC's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. We find that NECC has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4804A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 12, 2007. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on October 25, 2007. NCT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NCT's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4807A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on September 10, 2007. Primo states that Complainant signed up for its long distance services on July 3, 2006. Primo, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of a third party verification or a signed letter of agency. We find that Primo has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4808A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2007, alleging that Charter initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Charter of the complaint and Charter responded on September 14, 2007. Charter states that it established Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service for the Complainant. VoIP service is not covered by our carrier change rules. Based on information received from Charter, we find that Charter did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4810A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on July 24, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clear Rate with its response and find that Clear Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4811A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint. Horizon has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Horizon to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Horizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4812A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Access without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Access of the complaint and Access responded on October 11, 2007. Access admits that the sales representative submitted paperwork to convert Complainant's service to Access without proper authorization. We find that Access has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Access's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4813A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4814A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Verizon states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with Verizon's responses and find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4815A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were switched due to the customers signing up via the internet. We have reviewed Horizon's letters of authorization (LOAs) filed with Horizon's responses, and find that Horizon's LOAs did not contain electronic signatures from Complainants, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4816A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaints and OneLink responded. OneLink states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs and find that OneLink has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions did not result in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4817A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on October 23, 2007. Primo did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Primo has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Primo's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4818A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4818A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4818A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Accxx without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaints and Accxx responded. Accxx states that Complainants' telecommunications service providers were mistakenly switched during data base changes that caused all old accounts to be re-activated. Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in unauthorized changes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4819A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on November 1, 2007. Cavalier states that it no longer conducts business with the third party verification vendor and is unable to obtain a copy of the letter of authorization. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4820A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on November 2, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and we find that Clear Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4821A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint and Accxx responded on October 12, 2007. Accxx states that it changed Complainant's telecommunications service provider to Accxx in error due to data base changes which caused old accounts to be re-activated. We find that Accxx has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4822A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4822A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4822A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on October 22, 2007. MSTC states that authorization was received and confirmed when an online letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by MSTC with its response and observe that the LOA does not contain an electronic signature as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4823A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4823A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4823A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zoom-i-Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom-i-Net of the complaint and Zoom-i-Net responded on October 15, 2007. Zoom-i-Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Zoom-i-Net with its response and find that Zoom-i-Net's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4824A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4824A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4824A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT states that authorizations were received and confirm through third party verification (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NCT filed with its responses and find that, in each case, NCT's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4825A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4825A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4825A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UAT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaints and UAT responded. UAT states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs UAT submitted with its responses and find that UAT has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4826A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4826A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4826A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cavalier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaints. Cavalier has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Cavalier to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Cavalier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4828A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4828A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4828A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. NSB states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NSB filed with its responses and find that NSB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NSB's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4829A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 7, 2007. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4830A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 11, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on October 11, 2007. RRLD's response states that its authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4831A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on October 11, 2007. Horizon submitted a letter of agency (LOA) as proof of authorization for the switch. Horizon's LOA, however, includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4832A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on October 164, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response and find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4833A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4833A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4833A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on November 2, 2007. Cavalier did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4834A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Marathon USA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Marathon USA of the complaint. Marathon USA has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Marathon USA to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that Marathon USA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4835A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pulse without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pulse of the complaint Pulse has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Pulse to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that Pulse has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4836A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4836A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4836A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on August 14, 2007. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Birch's response, and we find that Birch's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4837A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4837A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4837A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 1, 2007. Qwest admits in its response that, due to a Qwest keying error Complainant's service was switched back to Qwest. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4838A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4838A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4838A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on July 13, 2007. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleUno's response and find that authorization was given. We find that TeleUno has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-4996A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on May 8, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5052A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5052A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5052A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 26, 2007, alleging that Verizon initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 13, 2007. Based on information received from Verizon, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5053A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 24, 2007. We find that, based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier which did not show Qwest submitting a carrier change order, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5054A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 20, 2007. NCT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5055A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5055A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5055A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CenturyTel Long Distance, Inc. (CenturyTel) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint and CenturyTel responded on August 20, 2007. CenturyTel stated that it received an electronic order to switch Complainant's long distance to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 4, 2007. Qwest stated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5056A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5056A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5056A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on November 27, 2007. OneLink states that it contacted the independent third party verification (TPV) company and due to a workstation error, the TPV information could not be retrieved. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5057A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5057A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5057A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on November 26, 2007. Cavalier states that Complainant's service was switched due to a clerical error. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5058A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5058A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5058A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 25, 2007. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response. Because the TPV was unintelligible in part and inaudible in part, we requested that Cordia provide another TPV. Cordia,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5059A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5059A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5059A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5060A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5060A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5060A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on November 16, 2007. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that Startec's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, and that the person on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5061A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5061A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5061A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Opex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Opex of the complaint and Total Call International (TCI) responded on behalf of Opex on November 26, 2007. TCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Opex has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5062A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5062A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5062A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on June 6, 2007 and October 9, 2007. Based on Qwest's responses, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5063A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5063A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-5063A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 14, 2007. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-672A1.txt
  • education initiatives and the performance of intergovernmental affairs on behalf of the Commission. As part of the review process, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau has reviewed all of the rules within each of the following parts that apply to ``the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service:'' Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and providers of telecommunications services to ensure that their equipment and services are accessible to persons with disabilities. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-689A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 9, 2007. In 2005, SBC and AT&T Corporation merged to become AT&T, Inc. We find that, based on AT&T's response, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-690A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 11, 2006. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through a third party verification. Silv's verifier, however, failed to elicit the name of the carrier affected by the change. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-691A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 4, 2006. Qwest has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Qwest in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-692A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint, and MyTel responded on December 11, 2006. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-694A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-695A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Communications Long Distance to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 11, 2006. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cox. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on October 20, 2006. Cox's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-696A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-710A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on January 5, 2007. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response and find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-712A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Global Crossing (AT&T) to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on January 16, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-714A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Hello Depot without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hello Depot of the complaint and Hello Depot responded on January 12, 2007. Hello Depot states that Complainant's third party verification recording was lost due to a computer virus. We find that Hello Depot has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Hello
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-715A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on May 1, 2006. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. VLD's automated verification system, however, failed to obtain the oral authorization from the subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that VLD has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-716A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on December 22, 2006. Primus's response states that it did not ``slam'' Complainant and that Complainant was billed in error by a carrier of a customer who previously had Complainant's telephone number prior to Complainant. We have reviewed Primus's response and agree that Primus did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-717A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on December 8, 2006. IDT states a collection agency attempted to recover an outstanding balance owed IDT by Complainant. Based on our review of the record, we find that IDT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-718A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on January 16, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-719A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint and NET responded on November 29, 2007. NET states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NET with its response and find that NET has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-720A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on January 16, 2007. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-722A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on September 20, 2006. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that U.S. Telecom filed with its response and find that U.S. Telecom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-723A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on July 11, 2006. OneLink states that he telephone number at issue was that of a previous customer and, due to the new service, Complainant continued receiving phone bills. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Complainant's local exchange carrier, BellSouth with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-724A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on November 21, 2006. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Cordia filed with its response and find that the verifier marketed voice mail service in violation of our rules. Therefore, we find that Cordia's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-725A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaints and CNBI responded. CNBI indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted with CNBI's responses and find that in each case CNBI failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-726A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2006 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Enhanced Coroporation to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on July 5, 2006. Acceris has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Acceris in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-727A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and BellSouth responded on July 6, 2006. BellSouth states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV BellSouth filed with its response and find that BellSouth has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-728A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on May 15, 2006. IDT states that the telephone number at issue was that of a previous customer and, due to the new service, Complainant continued receiving phone bills. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Complainant's local exchange carrier, BellSouth, with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-848A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on September 29, 2004. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-849A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 20, 2004. NALD states that due to a clerical error by the sales representative, Complainant's service was switched in error. We find that NALD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-850A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-850A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-850A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2004, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on April 1, 2005. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to obtain authorization to switch complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-851A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on February 8, 2006. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NALD with its response and find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-852A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BOptions without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BOptions of the complaint and BOptions responded on August 10, 2005. We find that, based on BOptions's response BOptions did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-853A1.txt
  • to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. Upon review of NALD's responses, we find that NALD has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of NALD. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-854A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaints and NCT responded. NCT states that authorizations was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NCT's responses and find that NCT has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-867A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-868A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-869A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-874A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Adelphia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Adelphia of the complaint and Pioneer Telephone (Pioneer) responded on February 21, 2006. Based on information, received from Pioneer and Complainant's local exchange carrier, we find that Adelphia did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-875A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Acceris without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Acceris of the complaint and Acceris responded on February 28, 2006. Acceris stated that it has been Complainant's service provider since December 2005 and did not switch Complainant's service, but only switched its own underlying facilities based carrier (which appeared to the Complainant as a switch of Complainant's service). Information provided by Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-877A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-877A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-877A1.txt
  • the acquiring carrier comply with our streamlined procedures. To comply with these procedures, the acquiring carrier must file with the Commission's Office of the Secretary, no later than 30 days before the planned transfer, a letter notification in CC Docket 00-257 that meets the requirements listed in Section 64.1120 (e)(1) of our rules, including proper customer notice. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on May 8, 2006. Pioneer's states it became the long distance service provider for Complainant on or about October 21, 2005, via purchasing the subscriber base of Adelphia Communications. According to Complainant's local exchange carrier, however, before this transfer, the Complainant switched to another carrier on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-883A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-883A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-883A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-884A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-884A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-884A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2003 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 23, 2004. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Based on the TPV submitted by Sprint, we find that Sprint has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1000A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1000A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1000A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to New Century without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaints and New Century responded. New Century states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by New Century with its responses. The TPVs confirmed that Complainants wanted to switch state to state interLATA service. InterLATA service, in each Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1001A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 10, 2008. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MCI with its response and find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1002A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NationsLine without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NationsLine of the complaint and NationsLine responded on February 26, 2008. NationsLine did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NationsLine has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NationsLine's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1003A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on February 15, 2008. Primo, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Primo's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Primo's liability below. Primo must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1004A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 1, 2008. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response and find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1005A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on January 2, 2008. We find that, based on MSTC's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MSTC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1006A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 11, 2008. Silv states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). During the verification, however, part of the name of the carrier making the switch was unintelligable. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1007A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on February 28, 2008. Cordia states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Cordia's verifier, however, marketed voicemail and an inside wiring plan to the customer, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1008A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACCXX without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACCXX of the complaint. ACCXX has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ACCXX to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ACCXX's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1009A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on February 26, 2008. Upon review of LDS' response, we find that LDS has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1011A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on March 29, 2007. Horizon states that authorization was received when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon with its response and find that Horizon's LOA, however, included an inducement in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1012A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LaurenTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LaurenTel of the complaint, and LaurenTel responded on January 14, 2008. In its response, LaurenTel states that it did not switch Complainant's telecommunications services. The telephone bill submitted by Complainant with the complaint substantiates and confirms LaurenTel's assertion because Verizon is listed as Complainant's authorized carrier for all of Complainant's telecommunications services. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1043A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint and Telrite responded on December 5, 2007. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1050A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1050A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1050A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. AT&T states in its response that due to a data processing error, it inadvertently neglected to include the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) on the ASR order. As a result, the local exchange carrier did not open the reseller's CIC(s) and calls were
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1053A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1053A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1053A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Telrite Corporation to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 13, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC with its response and find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1054A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1054A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1054A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on December 4, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UAT's response, and we find that UAT's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1113A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1113A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1113A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 21, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1114A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleCircuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleCircuit of the complaint and TeleCircuit responded on April 7, 2008. TeleCircuit states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TeleCircuit with its response and find that TeleCircuit's verifier, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1115A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded April 4, 2008. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1116A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on April 21, 2008. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UAT's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that UAT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1117A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1117A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1117A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from IDT to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's responses, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on each Complainant's local exchange carriers (LECs) and the LECs responded. Because AT&T has not provided proof of each customer authorization in its responses to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1118A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1118A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on January 2, 2008. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with the carrier's response, and we find that an authorization was given. We find that Zoom has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1119A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1119A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1119A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 3, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on April 8, 2008. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1120A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1120A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1120A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 2, 2008. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1121A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1121A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1121A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 3, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) and the LEC responded. Because AT&T has not provided proof of the customer authorization in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1122A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1122A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1122A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1123A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1123A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1123A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 12, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on April 8, 2008. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1124A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1124A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1124A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Legent without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Legent of the complaint and Legent responded on January 10, 2008. Legent states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with Legent's response and find that the Legent's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1136A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 5, 2007. In its response, AT&T stated that AT&T did not submit a Primary Inter-change Carrier order to switch the Complainant's long distance service. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint, and Verizon responded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1137A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CT of the complaint and CT responded on December 27, 2007. CT has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by CT in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1139A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zero Plus Dialing, Inc. (ZPDI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and the billing agent for ZPDI responded on December 18, 2007. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United American Technologies (UAT) of the complaint and UAT responded on January 2, 2008. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1140A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on February 25, 2008. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. The verifier asked Complainant if she authorized BNLD ``to provide new long distance service for all interstate long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1141A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. NSB states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NSB filed with its responses and find that NSB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NSB's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1142A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 28, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1164A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on October 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications (Primus) to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint. In its response, AT&T stated that, due to a data processing error, it inadvertently neglected to include the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) on the access service request (ASR) order. AT&T further stated that, as a result, the local exchange carrier (LEC) did not open the reseller's CIC(s)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1191A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint, and Verizon responded on January 10, 2008. Verizon states that, because the request listed the number as a billing telephone number instead of a working telephone number, Verizon rejected the request and a correct request has not yet been submitted. Verizon does not state, however, why this is a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1234A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 10, 2008. MCI stated that it received an order from Windstream to change Complainant's telecommunications carrier. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream of the complaint and Windstream responded on April 22, 2008. Windstream has fully absolved the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1235A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on June 29, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UAT's response, and we find that UAT's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on May 1, 2008. RRLD states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. RRLD's LOA, however, includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that RRLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1237A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1238A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1238A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1238A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 7, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that the verifier marketed Cordia's services by providing additional information regarding voicemail and inside wire protection, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1239A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1239A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1239A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1240A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 1, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1241A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1241A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1241A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on March 24, 2008. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MyTel's response and find that MyTel's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1242A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint, and VLD responded on March 3, 2008. Based on VLD's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VLD's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on April 11, 2008. Based on VLD's response coupled with information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1243A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs and find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions did not result in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1244A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 4, 2008. We find that, based on Qwest's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1245A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on May 1, 2008. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Long Distance Savings's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Long Distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1246A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Birch Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch Telecom of the complaint and Birch Telecom responded on May 5, 2008. Birch Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Birch Telecom with its response and find that Birch Telecom's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1247A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint. CTI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CTI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CTI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1248A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Long Distance Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Services of the complaint and Long Distance Services responded on April 24, 2008. Long Distance Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Long Distance Services's with its response and find that Long Distance Services's verifier failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1250A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on April 14, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1251A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on April 23, 2008. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC's with its response and find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1256A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on April 16, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1257A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on February 21, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1258A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on March 26, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). It is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. The verifier asked
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1259A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on April 24, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1260A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on May 9, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1261A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. The verifier asked ``are you 18
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1452A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on February 14, 2008. Primo states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Primo with its response and find that Primo's LOA contains language having other then the sole purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1455A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 6, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1457A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on April 29, 2008. MetTel states in its response that it acquired the customer when it acquired CTI Communications. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the acquiring
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1516A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 12, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Qwest, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on May 19, 2008. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1517A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss RRLD's liability below. We also will forward a copy of the record of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1518A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1519A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 13, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1539A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint, and VarTec responded on April 1, 2008. Based on VarTec's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VarTec's response on AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on May 1, 2008. Based on VarTec's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1540A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1540A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1540A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on March 11, 2008. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on March 21, 2008. Based on Qwest's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1541A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1541A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1541A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1542A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1542A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1542A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1543A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1543A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1543A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on May 1, 2008. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by SBA with its response and find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1544A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 31, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1545A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1546A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on April 23, 2008. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDC's response, and we find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1547A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 23, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and we find that authorization was given. The fact that the person on the TPV recording gave an incorrect
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1550A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint. MetTel has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of MetTel to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that MetTel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1551A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on April 18, 2008. Birch states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Birch's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold as required by our rules. We find that Birch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1552A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Granite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Granite of the complaint and Granite responded on April 17, 2008. Granite states that the telephone numbers of Complainant's were inadvertently taken because a Granite employee typed the wrong billing telephone number. We find that Granite has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1553A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 10, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1554A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on June 5, 2008. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred with its response and find that Preferred has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1555A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on April 3, 2008. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by UAT with its response and find that UAT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1556A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1556A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1556A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaint and America responded on May 22, 2008. America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by America with its response and find that America has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1557A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1557A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1557A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Lightwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightwave of the complaint and Lightwave responded on May 14, 2008. Lightwave states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Lightwave's with its response and find that Lightwave's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1558A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1558A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1558A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 13, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1559A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. We find that LDC has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1560A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on May 29, 2008. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Preferred Billing's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1591A1.txt
  • 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to 3U Telecom Inc. (3U) without Complainant's authorization. We served 3U on March 14, 2008, and 3U responded on March 25, 2008. In its response, 3U states the switch was made as a result of an order it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Hawaiian Telecom. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hawaiian Telecom of the complaint and Hawaiian Telecom responded on February 13, 2008. Hawaiian Telecom admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly changed to 3U. We find that Hawaiian Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Hawaiian Telecom's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1592A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Trans National Communications Inc. (TNCI) to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on February 20, 2008. WilTel states that it is the facilities-based underlying carrier for Complainant's authorized carrier, TNCI. TNCI comfirmed that it changed underlying carriers from Sprint to Level (3), a WilTel affiliate, Based on WilTel's response, coupled with information received from TCNI, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1607A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 10, 2008. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). BNLD's verifier, however, failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that BNLD has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1608A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 14, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). Cordia's verifier, however, marketed other carrier services in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1609A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 13, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1610A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on June 3, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1611A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1611A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1611A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on May 22, 2008. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by VLD with its response and find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1612A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint. Cavalier has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cavalier to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1615A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CC of the complaint and CC responded on April 29, 2008. CC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CC's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1616A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CC of the complaint and CC responded on April 14, 2008. CC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CC's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1617A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on March 27, 2008. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through a letter of agency (LOA). We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Cavalier with its response and find that the LOA did not contain all of the complete telephone numbers to be switched,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1618A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on May 30, 2008. Zoom states in its response that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV), but that Zoom is unable to provide the TPV. Consequently, we find that Zoom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1619A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on May 28, 2008. NCT states in its response that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV), but that NCT is unable to provide the TPV. Consequently, we find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1620A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Verizon to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on May 12, 2008. NCT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1758A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on April 11, 2008. NLDS stated that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV, it is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1759A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on March 28, 2008. RRLD stated that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV, it is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1760A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on March 21, 2008. NSBI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have revewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 9, 2008. BNLD stated that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV, it is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1762A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1763A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1765A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 13, 2008. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ATS with its response and find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1767A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on June 25, 2008. LDC states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). LDC's verifier, however, failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1768A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 18, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1769A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 17, 2008. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was added to a Sprint business account as a result of a keying error by a Sprint employee. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1770A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint. Sprint has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Sprint to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1771A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on June 18, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDA with its response and find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1772A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1773A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDMI of the complaint. LDMI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDMI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDMI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1774A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCNC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCNC of the complaint and TCNC responded on May 6, 2008. TCNC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TCNC with its response and find that TCNC has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1775A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 11, 2008. We find that, based on its response, there was a billing error and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1777A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 8, 2008. In its response, Qwest stated that it did not receive a notice of change away from Qwest by Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1778A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1779A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on April 25, 2008. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Zoom's response, and we find that Zoom's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA services, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1780A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 23, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1781A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on April 16, 2008. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NALD's response. We find that it is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on May 12, 2008. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on AT&T Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on June 4, 2008. Based on Qwest's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1790A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch Telecom of the complaint and Birch Telecom responded on May 14, 2008. Birch Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Birch Telecom's response and find that Birch Telecom's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1791A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on June 18, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1792A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on June 20, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1793A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on May 30, 2008. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and find that Startec has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1794A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on April 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NSBI without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1795A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on June 30, 2008. MetTel states that Complainant's telephone line service was active from January 9, 2008 thru May 28, 2008, via purchasing the subscriber base of CTI Communications in January 2008. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1796A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NLDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaints. NLDS has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss NLDS's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1797A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1798A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1799A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint. NLDS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1800A1.txt
  • must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on December 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Main Street of the complaint. In response, Main Street stated it received authorization for enrollment in a Main Street calling plan from the Complainant and submitted information in support of that assertion. The Division determined that the data Main Street submitted did not include several pieces of information required to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1801A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on April 15, 2008. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response and find that NCT's verifier failed to obtain appropriate verification data (e.g., the subscriber's date of birth or social security
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1802A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1802A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1802A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on March 11, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and it is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1803A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on April 4, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1804A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1804A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1804A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 8, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1805A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1805A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1805A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on April 23, 2008. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC with its response and find that LDC's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1806A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1806A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1806A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Nextel of the complaint, and Sprint Nextel responded on April 17, 2008. Based on Sprint Nextel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Sprint Nextel's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on May 20, 2008. Based on Sprint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1807A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1807A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1807A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on April 29, 2008. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ZIN's response and find that ZIN's verifier failed to obtain a separate authorization for intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1808A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1808A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1808A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on May 30, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1809A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1809A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1809A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on March 19, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and find that the TPV submitted is not intelligible. We find that RRLD did not provide clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1810A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1810A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1810A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 30, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain a separate authorization for intraLATA toll service, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1811A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1811A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1811A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint and NetOne responded on March 20, 2008. NetOne states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NetOne with its response and find that NetOne has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1812A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telcom of the complaint and Consumer Telcom responded on May 9, 2008. Consumer Telcom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Consumer Telcom with its response and find that Consumer Telcom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1813A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1813A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1813A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on March 19, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1827A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1827A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1827A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to First without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified First of the complaint and First responded on March 4, 2008. First states that Complainant's long distance was set up with Acceris from 1997 through 2007, and that, due to an asset purchase agreement with Acceris, Complainant's account was switched over to First's services. However, Complainant's long distance service had been switched to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1829A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1829A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1829A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 23, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest, and the LEC responded on July 2, 2008. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1830A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on May 8, 2008. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Zoom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Zoom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1831A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1831A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1831A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on May 19, 2008. MetTel's states it became the long distance service provider for Complainant on or about January 22, 2008 through April 4, 2008, via purchasing the subscriber base of CTI Communications in January of 2008. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1832A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1832A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1832A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on May 29, 2008. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UAT's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that UAT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1834A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1834A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1834A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on May 10, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). It is unclear from the verification, however, if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. The verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1835A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1835A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1835A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-183A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. LDCB states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by LDCB with its responses and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1848A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1848A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1848A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI referred the Commission to United Telecom Inc. (UTI). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we then notified UTI of the complaint and UTI referred the Commission to Silv. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-184A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that, based on MCI's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1853A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed by Qwest Corporation (Qwest) from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded March 3, 2008. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on AT&T and the AT&T responded April 4, 2008. Because AT&T has not provided proof of customer authorization in its response to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-185A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1868A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on July 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified LDCB of the complaint. In its response, LDCB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division stated that, although Complainant agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifier was not correct. Therefore, the Division found that, because of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-187A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 16, 2007. We find that, based on its response, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 7, 2007. Based on MCI's response, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) of the complaint and MCI's response. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1895A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 2, 2008. MCI admits that it switched Complainant's service in error. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1896A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on March 31, 2008. FSN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by FSN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-189A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on November 13, 2007. CTI states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). CTI's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold. We find that CTI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-190A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Mytel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mytel of the complaint and Mytel responded on November 6, 2007. Mytel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Mytel with its response and find that Mytel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-191A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on November 7, 2007. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by RRLD with its response and find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-192A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 9, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1935A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Affinity4 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Affinity4 of the complaint, and Affinity4 responded on May 19, 2008. Based on Affinity4's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Affinity4's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on August 15, 2008. Based on Affinity4's response coupled with information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-193A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on October 11, 2007. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Zoom with its response and find that Zoom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-194A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to NCTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCTI of the complaints and NCTI responded. NCTI indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NCTI filed with its responses and find that, in each case, however, NCTI's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-195A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 27, 2007. Upon review of MCI's response, we find that MCI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-196A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on September 24, 2007. LDCB states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). LDCB's verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch of Complainant's intraLATA service. We find that LDCB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1976A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 9, 2008. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MCI with its response and find that MCI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1977A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on June 25, 2008. VZLD, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that VZLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss VZLD's liability below. VZLD must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1978A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on June 26, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1979A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on July 30, 2008. BNLD stated that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with BNLD's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-197A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MyTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MyTel of the complaint and MyTel responded on December 5, 2007. MyTel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MyTel with its response and find that MyTel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1980A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 1, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1981A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 1, 2008. NLDS stated that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and it is unclear from the verification if the verifier obtained a confirmation whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1982A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified first notified Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. (GCTI) of the complaint and GCTI referred the Commission to LDMI. We then notified LDMI of the complaint and Cavalier Telephone on behalf of LDMI responded on July 11, 2008. LDMI states that Complainants telephone number was switched in error during a system change. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1983A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 21, 2008. Sprint states that Complainant's telephone number was erroneously included in a group of telephone numbers submitted to Sprint for another customer. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Sprint's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1984A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on July 10, 2008. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred with its response and find that Preferred has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1985A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on July 30, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDA with its response and find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-198A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on December 3, 2007. Upon review of CNBI's response, we find that CNBI has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1991A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did not result in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1992A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on July 15, 2008. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-1993A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Services of the complaint and Long Distance Services responded on July 2, 2008. Long Distance Services states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Long Distance Services with its response and find that Long Distance Services has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-199A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on November 1, 2007. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Zoom with its response and find that Zoom has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2001A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2001A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2001A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pioneer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaint and Pioneer responded on March 31, 2008. Based on Pioneer's response, we find that Pioneer did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2002A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2002A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2002A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. Cordia states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Cordia with Cordia's responses. Cordia's verifiers, however, marketed the carrier services by inquiring as to whether the persons on the calls were adding voicemail and inside
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2003A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2003A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2003A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 2, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia provided a non-Cordia TPV recording, i.e., the recording pertains to another carrier and not Cordia. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2004A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2004A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2004A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with LDS's responses and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that LDS's actions did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2005A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2005A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2005A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from StarVox Communications to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on June 18, 2008. MetTel states it became the long distance service provider for Complainant on or about January 22, 2008 thru April 4, 2008, via purchasing the subscriber base of CTI Communications in January 2008. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2006A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2006A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2006A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on June 12, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2007A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2007A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2007A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer of the complaint and Consumer responded on May 19, 2008. Consumer states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Consumer with its response and find that Consumer has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2008A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2008A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2008A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on April 8, 2008. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on AT&T Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on May 21, 2008. Based on Qwest's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2009A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2009A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2009A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 3, 2008. AT&T states that calls are defaulting to the AT&T network by a routing or switch error from the Complainant's local phone company, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-200A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest Communications Corp. (Qwest) of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 4, 2007. Qwest states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cox. We then notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 13, 2007. Cox states that Complainant's service was switched to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2010A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2010A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2010A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. In its responses, LDCB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs LDCB filed with its responses. Although Complainants agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifiers was not correct. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2011A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 21, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). The verifier asked Complainant, ``And have you agreed to have your long distance service switched to AT&T Long Distance?'' Complainant responded, ``Yes, the long distance in the U.S.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2012A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2012A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2012A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. In its responses, LDCB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs LDCB filed with its responses. Although Complainants agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifiers was not correct. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2013A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed AT&T Corporation to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint. NLDS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2014A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2014A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2014A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cavalier Telephone to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on July 25, 2008. Based on Verizon's response, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2015A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2015A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2015A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 18, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T Corporation, and the LEC responded on June 10, 2008. We find that, based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-201A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 26, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 10, 2007. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-202A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2007, alleging that Primo initiated new long distance service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on October 23, 2007. Based on information received from Primo, we find that Primo did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-203A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 31, 2007. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2040A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2040A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2040A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Working Assets to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 1, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-205A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaints and Reduced Rate responded. Reduced Rate states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Reduced Rate with its responses and find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-206A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2071A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2071A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2071A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint. ISI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ISI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ISI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2072A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2072A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2072A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2073A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2073A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2073A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Americatel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint. Americatel has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Americatel to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Americatel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2075A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2075A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2075A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint. CRC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CRC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CRC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2076A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on July 22, 2008. CTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CTI with its response and find that CTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2077A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on July 25, 2008. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Consequently, there was no violation of the Commission's carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-207A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 13, 2007. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDC with its response and find that LDC failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-208A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on November 20, 2007. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ZIN with its response and find that ZIN has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-209A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on June 28, 2007. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clear Rate with its response and find that Clear Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-210A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century Telecom, Inc. (NCT) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on October 23, 2007. NCT states that after their investigation of the complaint, Complainant's telephone number was provisioned on behalf of NCT's reseller Zoom-i-Net. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on December 18, 2007.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-211A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation (AT&T) to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on August 22, 2007. LDCB states in its response that authorization was confirmed through third party verification (TPV). Although Complainant agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifier was not correct. Because of this incorrect definition, we find that LDCB
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-212A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on July 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Qwest Communications Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint. Qwest states that Complainant's telephone number was added to its reseller's account Virtual Reach. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Virtual Reach of the complaint. Virtual Reach has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Virtual Reach to respond or provide proof
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-214A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Charter without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Charter of the complaint, and Charter responded on September 6, 2007. Based on Charter's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Charter's response on AT&T Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on December 27, 2007. Based on Charter's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-215A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint, and Sprint responded on November 5, 2007. Based on Sprint's response, we find that Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2176A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 23, 2008. Qwest indicated that Complainant's telephone number was added to Covista Communications' rebiller account. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on Covista, and Covista responded on May 12,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2177A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century Telecom (NCT) of the complaint and NCT responded on May 1, 2008. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response and find that the verifier failed to obtain authorization to switch Complainant's intraLATA toll service, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint. NLDS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2179A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint. Quasar has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Quasar to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Quasar's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-217A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on December 12, 2007. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Reduced Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2180A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on July 10, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2181A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 7, 2008. Qwest states that it received confirmation from Complainant's local exchange carrier to bill Complainant for inter and intraLATA service. Qwest also states that it added Complainant's telephone number to its reseller, Covista, Inc. (Covista) which requested Complainant's telephone number. Pursuant to Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2182A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on August 27, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wants to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2183A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on June 30, 2008. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by New Century's with its response and find that New Century's third party verifier confirmed that Complainant wanted to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2184A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints. Silv has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Silv to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2185A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Access One without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Access One of the complaint and Access One responded on August 5, 2008. Access One states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Access One with its response and find that Access One has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2186A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint. Telrite has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Telrite to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Telrite's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2187A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint. Cordia has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cordia to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2188A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Premium without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Premium of the complaint and Premium responded on July 10, 2008. Premium did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency as required by our rules. We find that Premium has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Premium's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2189A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONETouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONETouch of the complaint and ONETouch responded on July 3, 2008. ONETouch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ONETouch's response and find that ONETouch's verifier failed to confirm all of Complainant's telephone numbers to be switched as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-218A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on January 9, 2008. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Reduced Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2191A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint Nextel Corporation responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2192A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on May 2, 2008. We find that, based on WilTel's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, WilTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2193A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 8, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2194A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on April 28, 2008. We find that, based on Clear World's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Clear World did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2195A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2195A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2195A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 14, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2196A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on July 29, 2008. ATS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). ATS's verifier, however, failed to confirm the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that ATS has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2197A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on August 4, 2008. Based on Cavalier's response, we find that Cavalier did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2198A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2198A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2198A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 8, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on September 16, 2008. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 7, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Embarq, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on July 18, 2008. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-219A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 29, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2200A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2201A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on August 4, 2008. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through an independent third party verification (TPV) submitted with Birch's response, we have reviewed the TPV. The verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2202A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs). Based on AT&T's responses, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' LECs. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2203A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2008. In its response, AT&T stated that the Complainant had been removed from AT&T services effective November 27, 2007. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint, and Verizon responded on July 25, 2008.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-220A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 3, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-221A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Horizon without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaints and Horizon responded. Horizon indicates that authorization was received and confirmed when letters of agency (LOAs) were signed and processed. Horizon's LOAs, however, include an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-222A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 24, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global Tech without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global Tech of the complaint and Global Tech responded on September 14, 2007. Global Tech has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Global Tech in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-223A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-223A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-223A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on October 15, 2007. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with New Century's response, and we find that New Century's verifier failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-224A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-224A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-224A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Winstar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Winstar of the complaint. Winstar has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Winstar to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Winstar's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-225A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-225A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-225A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 13, 2007. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT's with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-226A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-226A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-226A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on December 11, 2007. ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ZIN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-227A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-227A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-227A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on October 3, 2007. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LSI's with its response and find that LSI's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-228A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-228A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-228A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 11, 2007. Based on Cavalier's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Cavalier's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on November 16, 2007. Based on Cavalier's response coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-229A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISC of the complaint. ISC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ISC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ISC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-230A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-230A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-230A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint. Accxx has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Accxx to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-231A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-231A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-231A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 21, 2007. Sprint did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Sprint has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2326A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2008. AT&T states in its response that the Complainant's carrier or the carrier involved in the alleged switching of telephone service is a carrier that purchases certain telecommunications services, namely, a product called AT&T Network Connection Service (ANC) from AT&T. According to AT&T,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-232A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-232A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-232A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on December 28, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-233A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-233A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-233A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 27, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2343A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint MCI responded May 27, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint and MCI's response and Embarq responded August 27, 2008. Embarq has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-234A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-234A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-234A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance America of the complaint and Long Distance America responded on January 9, 2008. Long Distance America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Long Distance America's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Long Distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2353A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Corporation to Network Connections without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Connections of the complaint. Network Connections has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Network Connections to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Network Connection's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-235A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-235A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-235A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint. OneLink has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of OneLink to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-236A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-236A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-236A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 16, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-237A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-237A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-237A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to Reduced Rate without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with Reduced Rate's responses and we find that authorizations were given. We find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2394A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on September 17, 2008. CSP states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). CSP's verifier, however, failed to obtain confirm that the person on the call authorized to make the carrier change; failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2395A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on September 2, 2008. VLD, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that VLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss VLD's liability below. VLD must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2396A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint. NSB has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSB to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSB's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2397A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint. CRC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CRC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CRC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2398A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2399A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on October 14, 2008. LSI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). LSI's verifier, however, failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that LSI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2400A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on August 26, 2008. MCI admits in its response that there was an unauthorized switch in Complainant's service. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2401A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sprint without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints. Sprint has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Sprint to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2402A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to American without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified American of the complaint and American responded on September 15, 2008. American states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). American's verifier, however, failed to obtain confirm each telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that American has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2403A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on July 3, 2008. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Teledias with its response and find that Teledias has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change. Therefore we find that Teledias's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2404A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaint and America responded on August 27, 2008. Upon review of America's response, we find that America has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on each third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2405A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 18, 2008. We find that, based on Silv's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Silv did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2406A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. In its responses, Cordia stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Cordia filed with its responses and find that in each case, Cordia's sales representative participated in the verification, which is not permitted under our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2407A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Quasar without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaints and Quasar responded. Quasar states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV's). We have reviewed the TPV's submitted by Quasar with its responses and find that in both cases, Quasar's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2408A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on October 15, 2008. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by SBA with its response and find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2409A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on July 7, 2008. Clear World states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clear World with its response and find that Clear World has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2410A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on June 30, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2411A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 7, 2008. We find that, based on its response, there was a billing error and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2412A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2413A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints and MCI responded. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2414A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on October 9, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDA with its response and find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2415A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on August 19, 2008. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LSI's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2416A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QCC of the complaint and QCC responded on May 30, 2008. QCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with QCC's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2417A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2417A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2417A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 3, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2418A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on August 21, 2008. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ATS with its response and find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2419A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on August 27, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2420A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel Communications, LLC (WilTel) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on July 8, 2008. WilTel states that it received an order from its reseller Silv Communications (Silv) for Complainant's telecommunications service. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv forwarded the complaint to America Net LLC (America
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2421A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on August 28, 2008. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cavalier with its response and find that Cavalier has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-242A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-242A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-242A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on August 30, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2431A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint. Startec failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Startec's liability below. We also will forward a copy of the record of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2432A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 15, 2008. Upon review of AT&T's response, further information was needed from the local exchange carrier, Qwest. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint. Qwest failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2433A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Regulatory Compliance Group on behalf of Main Street responded on July 31, 2008. Main Street states that Complainant purchased a dial-around service and, therefore, did not change complainants presubscribed long distance carrier. We agree that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2434A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2435A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2435A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2435A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint. NLDS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2436A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2436A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2436A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QCC of the complaint and QCC responded on June 26, 2008. QCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by QCC with its response and find that, the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-243A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-243A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-243A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on October 16, 2007. VarTec states it received preferred interchange carrier (PIC) confirmation to switch Complainant's service from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC). We then notified Complainant's LEC of the complaint and VarTec's response. Based on VarTec's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-244A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 20, 2007. NCT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-245A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-245A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-245A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on December 4, 2007. NSB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSB with its response and find that NSB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-246A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-246A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-246A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on January 8, 2008. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with SBA's response and we find that authorization was given. We find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-247A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-247A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-247A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on September 4, 2007. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred Billing with its response and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-248A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-248A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-248A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Qwest Communications (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on August 21, 2007. Based on Qwest's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century Telecom, Inc. (New Century) of the complaint and New Century responded on November 14, 2007. Based on New Century's response and pursuant to Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-249A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-249A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-249A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Telrite without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaints and Telrite responded. Telrite states in its responses that it has fully absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by Telrite in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-250A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on November 8, 2007. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-251A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint. RRLD has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of RRLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that RRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-252A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 29, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on October 16, 2007. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-253A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 8, 2007. AT&T states that due to a data processing error involving the ANC automation tool, AT&T inadvertently neglected to include this carrier's CIC code on the ASR order. As a result, the local exchange carrier did not open the Reseller's CIC(s) and calls
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-254A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-254A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-254A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T Inc. to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint, and Silv responded on October 30, 2007. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-255A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Northstar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Northstar of the complaint and Northstar responded on December 7, 2007. Northstar states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Northstar's response and find that the Northstar's verifier marketed the carrier's services by providing information regarding preferred carrier freeze procedures, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-256A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sage Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. AT&T states that it did not change the Complainant's phone service. Based on the information received from AT&T, it appears that the calls made by Complainant were operated assisted calls and, therefore, did not relate to a change of Complainant's service. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2579A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2579A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2579A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Zoom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaints and Zoom responded. Zoom states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Zoom with its responses and find that in each case. Zoom's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to Zoom's long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-257A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-257A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-257A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 28, 2007. AT&T states in its response that service for the Complainant was changed as the result of an order from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2580A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2580A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2580A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss NSBI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2581A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2581A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2581A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AOI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AOI of the complaint and AOI responded on September 16, 2008. AOI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by AOI with its response and find that AOI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2582A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2582A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2582A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 15, 2008. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TeleUno with its response and find that TeleUno has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2583A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2583A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2583A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Touchtone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Touchtone of the complaint. Touchtone has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Touchtone to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Touchtone's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2584A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2584A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2584A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pulse without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pulse of the complaint and Pulse responded on November 13, 2008. While stating that Complainant has bee a customer of Pulse, Pulse, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Pulse's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2585A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2585A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2585A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint. Network has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Network to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Network's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2586A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2586A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2586A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on July 21, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2587A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2587A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2587A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 25, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). Silv's verifier, however, failed to confirm each complete telephone number to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2588A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2588A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2588A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on September 24, 2008. Zoom states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). Zoom's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to Zoom's long distance service ``for calls from state to state.'' InterLATA service in Complainant's state of Virginia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-258A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-258A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-258A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on October 31, 2007. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT's with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2591A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2591A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCTI of the complaint and NCTI responded on September 23, 2008. NCTI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). NCTI's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to NCTI's long distance service ``for calls from state to state.'' InterLATA service inComplainants's state of Illinois includes
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2592A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2592A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2592A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCTI of the complaint and NCTI responded on October 16, 2008. NCTI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). NCTI's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to NCTI's long distance service ``for calls from state to state.'' InterLATA service in Complainant's state of Virginia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2593A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2593A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2593A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on July 8, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2594A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2594A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2594A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lightwave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lightwave of the complaint and Lightwave responded on November 12, 2008. Lightwave states that the customer was switched to Lightwave. Lightwave, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Lightwave's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2595A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2595A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2595A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 23, 2008. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2596A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2596A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2596A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on October 15, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDS with its response and find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2597A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2597A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2597A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on September 18, 2008. Upon review of Online Savings' response, we find that Online Savings has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2598A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2598A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2598A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VoiceNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VoiceNet of the complaint and VoiceNet responded on September 25, 2008. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, VoiceNet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2599A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2599A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2599A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on September 17, 2008. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response. Although Complainant agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifiers was not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-259A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-259A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-259A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T's responses claimed it did not slam Complainants. Based on AT&T's responses, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses coupled with information received from Complainants' LECs indicating AT&T did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2600A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2600A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2600A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on June 26, 2008. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ZIN's response and find that ZIN's third party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to ZIN's long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2601A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2601A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2601A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on August 1, 2008. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ZIN's response and find that ZIN's third party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to ZIN's long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2602A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2602A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2602A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on October 31, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2603A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2603A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2603A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on June 6, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and find that Cordia participated in the verification, which is not permitted under our rules. In addition, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2604A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2604A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2604A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on August 21, 2008. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Quasar with its response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2605A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2605A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2605A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on October 15, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV recording and find there is no clear and convincing evidence that LDS's third party verifier obtained confirmation from the person on the call that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2606A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2606A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2606A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2607A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2607A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2607A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint. Cordia has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cordia to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2608A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2608A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2608A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on August 25, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia participated in the verification, which is not permitted under our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2609A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2609A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2609A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on September 11, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-260A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-260A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-260A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq Communications to Total without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Total of the complaint. Total has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Total to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Total's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2610A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2610A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2610A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on September 8, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia participated in the verification, which is not permitted under our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2612A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2612A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2612A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on September 24, 2008. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with SBA's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2613A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on October 20, 2008. Cavalier states that it has been unable to locate a valid third party verification as required by our rules. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2615A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on September 8, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia participated in the verification, which is not permitted under our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2616A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications services providers and we discuss BNLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-261A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-261A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-261A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 29, 2007. AT&T states that it did not change the Complainant's phone service. It claims the calls made by Complainant were internet calls and can be billed through AT&T regardless of the customer's designated interLATA service provider. We then served MCI, Complainant's local exchange
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2653A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2653A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2653A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. In its responses, LDCB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs LDCB filed with its responses. Although Complainants agreed to switch intraLATA service, the definition of intraLATA service given by the verifiers was not correct. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2654A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on June 28, 2008. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec with its response and we find that Startec's verifier, however, failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2655A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September l8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century Telecom and responded on October 16, 2008. New Century states in its response that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV), but that New Century is unable to provide the TPV. Consequently, we find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2656A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century Telecom and New Century responded on September 12, 2008. New Century states in its response that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV), but that New Century is unable to provide the TPV. Consequently, we find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2657A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Preferred Billing with its responses and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2658A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Birch without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaints and Birch responded. Birch indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through an independent third party verification (TPV) submitted with Birch's response, we have reviewed the TPV. We have reviewed the TPVs submitted with Birch's responses
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2659A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavailer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavailer of the complaint and Cavailer responded on August 27, 2008. Cavailer states that the telephone numbers of the Complainant's was switched due to a Cavalier clerical error. We find that Cavailer has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Cavailer's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2660A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on August 14, 2008. New Century did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that New Century has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2661A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T, Inc. to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on August 1, 2008. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by New Century's with its response and find that New Century third party verifier confirmed that Complainant wanted to subscribe to New Century's long distance service for ``calls from state to state.'' InterLATA service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2679A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 23, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2740A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2740A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2740A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on August 20, 2008. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Birch with its response and find that the verifier, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2741A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Online without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online of the complaint and Online responded on September 18, 2008. Online states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Online's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Online has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2742A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 12, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest, and the LEC responded on November 4, 2008. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2743A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 28, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on November 5, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2744A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NSBI without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Americatel of the complaint. Americtael has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI and Americatel to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2745A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2745A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2745A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on October 3, 2008. Main Street states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Main Street's response and find that Main Street's LOA did not contain, among
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2746A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2746A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2746A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tele Circuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Circuit of the complaint. Tele Circuit has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Tele Circuit to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Tele Circuit's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2747A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint. Startec has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Startec to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2748A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on October 16, 2008. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). Prior to the TeleUno verification, Complainant's local, interLATA, and intraLATA provider was AT&T. During the verification, which we have reviewed, TeleUno's third-party verifier confirmed that the subscriber understood
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2749A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2749A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2749A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on August 26, 2008. We find that, based on Main Street's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2750A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2750A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2750A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Enhanced without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Enhanced of the complaint. Enhanced has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Enhanced to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Enhanced's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2751A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2751A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2751A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on October 14, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and find that Silv's verifier marketed its services by providing additional information regarding the cost of additional lines, in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2752A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2752A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2752A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on November 12, 2008. CTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CTI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2753A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2753A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2753A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on September 5, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2754A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2754A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2754A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Communications to Nationwide without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint. Nationwide failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Nationwide's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Nationwide's liability below. We also will forward a copy of the record of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2755A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2755A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2755A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint, and WilTel responded on October 16, 2008. Based on WilTel's response, we find that Complainant's telecommunications provider did not change but, rather, the authorized carrier of Complainant changed its underlying carrier to WilTel. Therefore, we find that WilTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2756A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2756A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2756A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's responses, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2757A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. (Global) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on July 17, 2008. Global states that the change in the Complainant's service was initiated by its reseller, NOS Communications (NOS). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NOS of the complaint. ANI Networks responded on behalf of NOS on August 26,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2758A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Choice without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Choice of the complaint and Clear Choice responded on September 9, 2008. The complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of prescribed long distance service. Based on Clear Choice's response, we find that Clear Choice did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2759A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on May 13, 2008. CWC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have received the TPV. The verifier failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call was authorized to switch intraLATA service. Therefore, CWC violated the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2760A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on August 26, 2008. Based on Broadview's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Broadview's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on November 5, 2008. We find that, based on Broadview's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2762A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Owtel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Owtel of the complaint, and Owtel responded on July 20, 2008. Based on Owtel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Owtel's response on Embarq Communications, Inc. (Embarq), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Embarq responded on October 28, 2008. Based on Owtel's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2763A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on July 30, 2008. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Clear Rate with its response and find that Clear Rate has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2764A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on July 8, 2008. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2765A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Champion Communications, Inc without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Champion of the complaint. Champion has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Champion to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Champion's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2766A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to Birch Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint but Birch has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Birch to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Birch's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2782A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 10, 2008. AT&T admits during the service order writing process the Sales Representative inadvertently typed in the wrong PIC code, resulting in the Complainant's service being switched in error. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2783A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Telco without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telco of the complaint and Telco responded on October 6, 2008. The complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Based on Telco's response, we find that Telco did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2784A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 30, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on August 15, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on November 18, 2008. Based on AT&T's response coupled with information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2786A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to US Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified US Telecom of the complaint and US Telecom responded on October 7, 2008. US Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with US Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that US Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2787A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on October 31, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV and find that the TPV does not elicit the date of the verification, in violation of the Commission's carier change rules. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2788A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Enhanced Communications Group, LLC to Convergia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Convergia of the complaint and Convergia responded on November 21, 2008. Convergia admits that the Complainant's phone number was activated in error. We find that Convergia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Convergia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2789A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 7, 2008. MCI states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cox. We then notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 3, 2008. Cox admits that it inadvertently omitted taking timely action on a record
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2790A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 5, 2008. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted with AT& T's response. AT&T's LOA does not include any authorization to change Complainant's carrier to AT&T, in violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2791A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2792A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 22, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2793A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 23, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Hawaiian Telcom, and the LEC responded on November 7, 2008. We find that, based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2795A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NetOne International to Century Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Century Tel of the complaint and Century Tel responded on October 30, 2008. Century Tel states that the Complainant established service with Century Tel on June 4, 2008. Century Tel has failed to provide a third party verification or letter of agency as proof of authorization as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2796A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex Communications to VP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VP of the complaint and VP responded on August 18, 2008, 2008. The complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Based on VP's response, we find that VP did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2797A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primo Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 10, 2008. AT&T states in its response that authorization was received through a letter of agency (LOA), but that AT&T is unable to provide the LOA, as required by our rules. Consequently, we find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2798A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 10, 2008. The Complainant initiated a new service. Based on AT&T's response, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2799A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2799A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2799A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 23, 2008. Based on Sprint's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Embarq, and the LEC responded on November 13, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2800A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2800A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2800A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 15, 2008. Based on Sprint's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Embarq, and the LEC responded on November 18, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2801A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T of the complaint and Citizens responded on August 18, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Citizen Communications, and the LEC responded on November 13, 2008.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2803A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2803A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2803A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global Communications to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 21, 2008. Verizon admits that the Complainant's third party verification was incomplete. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-313A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on September 21, 2007. MCI states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, RCN. We then notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on December 7, 2007. RCN states that Complainant's service was switched as a result of an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-331A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on February 7, 2008. ZIN states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ZIN with its response and find that ZIN's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-332A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on August 29, 2007. LSI stated that it was Complainant's carrier since December 2001 when LSI acquired Capsule Communications. Based on LSI's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and LSI's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-334A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 15, 2007. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-335A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-336A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Hawaiian without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 7, 2007. MCI states that the switch in Complainant's service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier, Hawaiian. We then notified Hawaiian of the complaint and Hawaiian responded on December 17, 2007. Hawaiian states the Complainant called in May and July 2007 to change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-337A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on December 3, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by UAT with its response and find that UAT's verifier, however, failed to confirm the switch of Complainant's intraLATA service, in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-338A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on December 3, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by UAT with its response and find that UAT has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-341A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 28, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on December 11, 2007. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-342A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 5, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Embarq, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on December 4, 2007. Embarq states in its response that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-343A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. AT&T states in its response that the Complainant's telephone numbers were changed at the Complainant's request. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on December 11, 2007. Verizon states in its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-344A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-344A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-344A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 30, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vista without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vista of the complaint and Vista responded on December 21, 2007. Based on Vista's response, we find that Vista did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-353A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on January 7, 2008. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Startec's with its response and find that Startec's verifier failed to confirm the telephone number to be switched. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-354A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on January 15, 2008. Cavalier states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cavalier with its response and find that Cavalier's verifier, however, provided an inducement regarding preferred carrier freeze procedures, in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-355A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on January 3, 2008. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ATS's response, and we find that ATS's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-357A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on January 24, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-358A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-358A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-358A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TWC of the complaint and TWC responded on January 11, 2008. TWC has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by TWC in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-359A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on December 31, 2007. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ATS's response, and we find that, after the sales respresentative finished providing information, ATS's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-360A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-360A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-360A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 16, 2008. MCI admits in its response that due to an order entry error it inadvertently added Complainant's account to another customer's account. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-372A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-372A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-372A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on October 16, 2007. We find that, based on Comcast's response, Comcast did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-373A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-373A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-373A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Vartec of the complaint and Vartec responded on October 26, 2007. Vartec has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Vartec in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-374A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 19, 2007. We find that, based on Qwest's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-375A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 29, 2007. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-376A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 24, 2007. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-381A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on September 18, 2007. Based on Qwest's response, we find that Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-399A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 28, 2007. Long distance service is comprised of both domestic interLATA service and international service. Thus, a subscriber cannot agree to have only domestic long distance but not international service. We have reviewed the third party verification (TPV) submitted by AT&T and find the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-400A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. In its response, AT&T stated that the switch was made due to contact with Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint, and Verizon responded on December 11, 2007. Verizon states that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-411A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Qwest of the complaint. In response, Qwest stated that, based on information it received from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest switched Complainant's telephone service. The Division then notified Complainant's LEC of the complaint and Qwest's response. Based on Qwest's response, coupled with information received from Complainant's LEC, the Division found
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-413A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on June 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Complainant's authorized carrier to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Primo of the complaint. In its response, Primo stated that Complainant signed up for Primo's service on October 3, 2003, as he attested to in his complaint, and that Complainant has a history of non-payment. Primo also stated that it blocked Complainant's long distance service on March 6, 2007, that Primo
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-476A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from World Discount Telecommunications (WDT) to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 23, 2007. The complaint clearly states that the complaint against AT&T was for AT&T's actions as a local exchange carrier (LEC) causing Complainant to be switched from WDT to AT&T for long distance service. However, AT&T did not address any of the allegations against
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-491A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-491A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-491A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on October 19, 2007. Sprint stated that the change in service was initiated by Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC) and provided a Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) record from the LEC as proof. The CARE record provided by Sprint, however, does not show that the LEC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-539A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint Nextel Corporation responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-636A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on February 11, 2008. The failure of Startec to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions did result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-637A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and MCI responded on November 7, 2007. MCI's response states that new service was involved, which is confirmed by Complainant's statement that he moved. The slamming rules do not cover new service. Thus, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-638A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Accxx without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Accxx of the complaint. Accxx has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Accxx to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Accxx's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-639A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Virtual Reach without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Virtual Reach of the complaint. Virtual Reach has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Virtual Reach to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Virtual Reach's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-640A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded on December 12, 2007. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-641A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-641A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-641A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint, and Comcast responded on December 20, 2007. Based on Comcast's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Comcast's response on Verizon Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and Verizon responded on February 25, 2008. Based on Comcast's response coupled with information
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-642A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-642A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-642A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on January 18, 2008. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneLink's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that OneLink has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-643A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-643A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-643A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network Connections without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network Connections of the complaint. Network Connections has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Network Connections to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Network Connections's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-644A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-644A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-644A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded on February 19, 2008. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-645A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-645A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-645A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-646A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-646A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-646A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 11, 2008. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with BNLD's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-647A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 14, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on February 20, 2008. Horizon states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Horizon's LOA, however, includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-648A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint. Telrite has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Telrite to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Telrite's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-649A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Reduced Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reduced Rate of the complaint and Reduced Rate responded on February 29, 2008. Reduced Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Reduced Rate's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Reduced Rate has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-654A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier Telephone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier Telephone of the complaint and Cavalier Telephone responded on February 29, 2008. Cavalier Telephone states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cavalier Telephone's response and find that Cavalier Telephone's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-655A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on February 24, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-656A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on January 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to NorthStar without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NorthStar of the complaint. NorthStar has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NorthStar to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NorthStar's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-657A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on February 7, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response and find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-658A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-659A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 5, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-660A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on January 28, 2008. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by America Net with its response and find that America Net has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-661A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 30, 2008. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response and find that NCT's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-662A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 11, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on January 3, 2008. NCT states authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). NCT's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the carrier change, as required by our rules. We find that NCT has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-663A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 28, 2007, alleging that Comcast initiated new local service for the Complainant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on January 25, 2008. Comcast states that Complainant called on August 22, 2007, requested Comcast Digital Voice Service, and Complainant completed a third party verification. This new order generated an automatic Local Service Request (LSR) to be sent to Verizon to request Complainant's telephone number, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-664A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on February 20, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by RRLD with its response and find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-665A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Nextel of the complaint and Sprint Nextel responded on December 13, 2007. Sprint Nextel stated that Complainant's original account was established beyond the two-year record retention period, it no longer had verification information for the account, and the account was canceled in December, 2004. It further stated that Complainant's line remain connected
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-666A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on February 5, 2008. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-667A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on December 12, 2007. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response and find that NCT's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-675A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-675A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-675A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carriers to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with NSBI's responses and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-676A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 11, 2008. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with BNLD's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that BNLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-677A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on February 6, 2008. CSP did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CSP has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CSP's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-678A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Preferred Long Distance without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Long Distance of the complaint and Preferred Long Distance responded on February 5, 2008. Preferred Long Distance states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred Long Distance's with its response and find that Preferred Long Distance's verifier failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-679A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Savings of the complaint and Long Distance Savings responded on March 5, 2008. Long Distance Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Long Distance Savings's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Long Distance
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-680A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear World without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear World of the complaint and Clear World responded on December 28, 2007. Clear World states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear World's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Clear World has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-681A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 7, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-682A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 17, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-685A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on February 1, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-686A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 7, 2008. OneLink did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that OneLink has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-687A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 19, 2008. Silv admits in its response that, due to a clerical error, Complaint's service was switched in error. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-688A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on February 24, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-689A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint, and Excel responded on January 29, 2008. Based on Excel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Excel's response on AT&T Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on March 14, 2008. Based on Excel's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-690A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint. Cavalier has failed to respond to the complaint, within 30 days. The failure of Cavalier to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-691A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. AT&T have fully absolved the Complainants of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaints referenced herein have been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-692A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 23, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-693A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2007 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on February 8, 2008. Based on Global's response, we find that Global did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-694A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-694A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-694A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 11, 2007. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on AT&T, Inc., Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on January 24, 2008. Based on MCI's response and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-695A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-695A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-695A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed From Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 16, 2007. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on January 31, 2008. Based on AT&T's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-696A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-696A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-696A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaints and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carriers (LECs), and the LECs responded We find that, based on AT&T's responses, coupled with information received from Complainant's LECs, AT&T did not violate our carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-698A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on February 8, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by RRLD with its response and find that RRLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-699A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 29, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on January 3, 2008. NSB admits in its response that due to its clerical error, Complainant's service was inadvertently switched to NSB. We find that NSB has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that NSB's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-700A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NLDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded. NLDS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through independent third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with NLDS's responses and we find that authorizations were given. We find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on January 2, 2008. Horizon states that Complainants telecommunications service provider was switched due to the customer signing up via the internet. We have reviewed Horizon's letter of authorization (LOA) filed with Horizon's response and find that Horizon's LOA, however, failed to obtain an electronic signature
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-715A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 26, 2007. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-716A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on January 23, 2008. Upon review of UAT's response, we find that UAT has complied with the verification requirements of Section 64.1120 of the Commission's rules. The fact that the person on the third party verification recording gave an incorrect name was beyond the control of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-717A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-717A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-717A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on January 29, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDA with its response and find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-718A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-718A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-718A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on November 16, 2007. We find that, based on Cavalier's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cavalier did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-719A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-719A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-719A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 26, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 1, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-720A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on January 30, 2008. Main Street states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed and it provides information purportedly submitted by Complainant. We have reviewed the information supposedly on the LOA filed with Main
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-721A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded on February 29, 2008. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-722A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint, and Verizon responded on February 27, 2008. Based on Verizon's response, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-723A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 4, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-725A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to World-Link without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified World-Link of the complaint and World-Link responded on February 29, 2008. World-Link states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with World-Link's response, and we find that World-Link's verifier failed to confirm the types of services involved, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-726A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on March 11, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-727A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 21, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-728A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-728A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-728A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on March 11, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CNBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-729A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-729A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-729A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on March 6, 2008. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NLDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-730A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-730A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-730A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CloseCall without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CloseCall of the complaint and CloseCall responded on March 5, 2008. CloseCall did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that CloseCall has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that CloseCall's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-731A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-731A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-731A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on March 11, 2008. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NSBI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-733A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-733A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ZIN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZIN of the complaint and ZIN responded on February 5, 2008. ZIN did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ZIN has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ZIN's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-784A1.txt
  • must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on September 21, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint. In its response, AT&T stated that, due to a data processing error, it inadvertently neglected to include the Carrier Identification Code (CIC) on the access service request (ASR) order. AT&T further stated that, as a result, the local exchange carrier (LEC) did not open the reseller's CIC(s)
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-812A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-812A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-812A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 3, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 8, 2007. Because AT&T has not provided proof of customer authorization in its response to Complainant's complaint, we find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-830A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-830A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-830A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on July 20, 2006. Cavalier states in its response that it acquired the customer when it merged with Talk America. Our rules allow a telecommunications provider to acquire all or part of another carrier's subscriber base without obtaining each subscriber's authorization and verification provided that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-918A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on December 19, 2007. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by UAT with its response and find that UAT's TPV was altered. , We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-972A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 18, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BellSouth without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BellSouth of the complaint and AT&T, Inc. on behalf of BellSouth responded on February 22, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, we find that BellSouth did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-973A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadwing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadwing of the complaint. Broadwing has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Broadwing to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Broadwing's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-976A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primo. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on December 17, 2007. Primo states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Primo with its response and find that Primo's LOA contains language having other then the sole purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-977A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on March 6, 2008. Horizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA submitted by Horizon with its response and find that Horizon's LOA, however, included an inducement in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-978A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint, and Qwest responded on February 8, 2008. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on AT&T Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on March 19, 2008. Based on Qwest's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-979A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on January 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Line Systems without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line Systems of the complaint. Line Systems has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Line Systems to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Line Systems's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-980A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on March 17, 2008. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response and find that CNBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-981A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on January 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to UAT without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint. UAT has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of UAT to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that UAT's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-982A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on March 11, 2008. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by VLD with its response and find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-983A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on April 4, 2008. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with America Net's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that America Net has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-984A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 7, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-985A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint, and VarTec responded on February 13, 2008. Based on VarTec's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VarTec's response on AT&T, Inc. (AT&T), Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and AT&T responded on March 21, 2008. Based on VarTec's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-986A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint. Cavalier has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cavalier to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-987A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 26, 2008. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions did result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-988A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-988A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-988A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 14, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-989A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-989A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-989A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telecom of the complaint and Consumer Telecom responded on February 26, 2008. Consumer Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telecom's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Consumer Telecom has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-990A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-990A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-990A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 24, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier marketed Cordia services, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-991A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-991A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-991A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 1, 2008. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Verizon's response and find that Verizon's LOA did not contain the subscriber's complete billing address or contain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-992A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-992A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-992A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 26, 2008. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Verizon's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-993A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-993A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-993A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Horizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Horizon of the complaint and Horizon responded on March 18, 2008. Horizon states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Horizon's LOA, however, includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that Horizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-994A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-994A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-994A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to McLeadUSA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified McLeadUSA of the complaint and McLeadUSA responded on March 17, 2008. McLeadUSA admits in its response that, due to an error while migrating its databases, Complaint's service was switched in error. We find that McLeadUSA has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-995A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-995A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-995A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 24, 2008. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-996A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-996A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-996A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on March 25, 2008. Qwest admits in its response that, due to a miskeyed error, Complaint's service was switched in error. We find that Qwest has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Qwest's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-997A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-997A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-997A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 27, 2008. MCI states that Complainant's service was inadvertently added to another customer's account. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-998A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-998A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-998A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on April 8, 2008. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NALD's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-999A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-999A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-999A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 27, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 10, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1093A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1093A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1093A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on November 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Mediacom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Mediacom of the complaint. The Division found that Mediacom failed to respond to the complaint. The Division stated that the failure of Mediacom to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation and, therefore, that Mediacom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1094A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1094A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1094A1.txt
  • carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on December 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified MCI of the complaint. MCI failed to respond within 30 days, as required by the Commission's rules, and the Division therefore found that MCI violated the Commission's carrier change rules. Verizon seeks reconsideration of the Division Order. II. DISCUSSION Based on the record before us, we affirm the Division Order and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1097A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1097A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1097A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 4, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1133A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1133A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1133A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on August 14, 2008. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by SBA with its response and find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1134A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1134A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1134A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on June 20, 2008. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response, and we find that the verifier only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state to state and intrastate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1135A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no telecommunications carrier shall submit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1136A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1136A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1136A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Telrite without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Telrite of the complaint and Telrite responded on December 2, 2008. Telrite admits that in the process of switching underlying carriers, Complainant's account was switched in error. We find that Telrite has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Telrite's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1137A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TCNC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCNC of the complaint and TCNC responded on November 11, 2008. TCNC states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by TCNC with its response and find that TCNC's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service, as required by our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1138A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on January 15, 2009. Spectrotel states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel's verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1139A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Onelink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Onelink of the complaint, and Onelink responded on January 12, 2009. Onelink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Onelink's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Onelink has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1140A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to QCC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QCC of the complaints and QCC responded. QCC states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by QCC with its responses. The TPVs confirmed that the Complainants wanted to switch long distance service for state to state and instate calls. InterLATA service in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on August 28, 2008. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Birch with its response and find that Birch's verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1142A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Hawaiian Telcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Hawaiian Telcom of the complaint and Hawaiian Telcom responded on October 13, 2008. We find that the complaint involves a toll restriction due to non-payment and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Hawaiian Telcom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 29, 2008. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that the third party verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1144A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on January 21, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Advantage did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1145A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on January 12, 2009. LSI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that LSI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1146A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ConnectTo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ConnectTo of the complaint and ConnectTo responded on March 10, 2009. ConnectTo did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that ConnectTo has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that ConnectTo's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1147A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1147A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1147A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to InfoDial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified InfoDial of the complaint and InfoDial responded on January 6, 2009. InfoDial states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. InfoDial's LOA, however, does not include an electronic signature in violation of our rules. We find that InfoDial has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1148A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDD of the complaints and LDD responded. We find that the complaints involve dial-around long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, LDD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1165A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint Embarq responded November 12, 2008. Embarq has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Embarq in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1166A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 17, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Embarq without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Embarq of the complaint Embarq responded November 13, 2008. Embarq has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Embarq in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1168A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 26, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the account was a new service order and there was no unauthorized switch. Thus, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLDI of the complaint and BNLDI responded on April 16, 2009. BNLDI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLDI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1170A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on April 28, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MLDI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1171A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on April 9, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1172A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Evercom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Evercom of the complaint and Evercom responded on April 8, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of collect calls and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, Evercom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1173A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 20, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of collect calls and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1174A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 1, 2009. We find that, based on its response MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1175A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer of the complaint Consumer responded March 16, 2009. Consumer has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Consumer in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1176A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint. ATS has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of ATS to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ATS's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1177A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on March 27, 2009. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Connect without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Connect of the complaint and Connect responded on April 22, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Connect did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1179A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on April 15, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). LDS's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, in violation of our rules. We find that LDS has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1180A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 20, 2009. We find that, based on its response, there was a billing error and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1181A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 6, 2009. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1182A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CNB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaints and CNB responded. In its responses, CNB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs CNB filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1183A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inmark of the complaints and Inmark responded. Inmark states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs filed with Inmark's responses, and we find that authorizations were given. We find that Inmark has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1185A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to RRLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaints and RRLD responded. In its responses, RRLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs RRLD filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on January 6, 2009. Based on Verizon's response, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1187A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on January 14, 2009. In its response, MCI stated that Complainant assumed that the local telephone and long distance services for the Complainant's five telephone lines were switched from MCI to AT&T on March 31, 2008. On May 21, 2008, MCI canceled the Complainant's account, per a call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1188A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on December 18, 2008. In its response, Cavalier stated that the submitting carrier which was authorized to make a carrier change, Verizon, neglected to port the line as specified and line ownership remained active with Cavalier. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1189A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Global without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global of the complaint and Global responded on January 23, 2009. Based on Global's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Global's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T Inc., and the LEC responded on March 12, 2009. We find that, based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1190A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on December 30, 2008. Based on VarTec's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VarTec's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on March 27, 2009. We find that, based on VarTec's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1191A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint and RRLD responded on August 18, 2008. RRLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1192A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDDI of the complaints and LDDI responded. We find that the complaints involve a calling card for long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, LDDI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1194A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. In its responses, LDS stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs LDS filed with its responses. The verifiers, however, failed to confirm that the persons on the calls wanted to make the carrier changes, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1196A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1196A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1196A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 26, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on December 29, 2008. CTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CTI's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that CTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1197A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1197A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1197A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Communications to New Century without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaint and New Century responded on August 1, 2008. New Century states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. New Century submitted with its response. The verifier confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch calls from ``state to state calls.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1405A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on January 6, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MLDI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1406A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on January 13, 2009. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with VLD's response, and we find that VLD's verifier sought confirmation pertaining to a preferred carrier freeze, in violation of the Commission's rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1407A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on January 10, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1408A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 19, 2009. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response. The TPV confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch interLATA service but made it clear she did not want to switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1410A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. (Global Crossing) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Global Crossing of the complaint and Global Crossing responded on April 17, 2009. Global Crossing states that the change in Complainant's telecommunications provider was initiated by Total Call International (TCI). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TCI of the complaint and TCI responded on May 12, 2009. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1411A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cheap2Dial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaint and Cheap2Dial responded on April 20, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1413A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint. NCT has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of NCT to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted in a violation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1414A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint. NALD has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of NALD to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NALD's actions resulted in a violation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1462A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on June 5, 2009. CTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CTI with its response and find that CTI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1464A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 29, 2009. MCI states that its representative erroneously added Complainant's telephone number to another MCI account. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1465A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on June 5, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UCPI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCPI of the complaint and UCPI responded on May 20, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, UCPI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1467A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1467A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1467A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 7, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by Verizon. Verizon, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1468A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1468A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1468A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30day of receipt of the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1469A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint. Sprint has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days of receipt of the complaint. The failure of Sprint to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Sprint's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1470A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1470A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1470A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comtel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtel of the complaint and Comtel responded on May 18, 2009. We find that, based on Comtel's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Comtel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1471A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1471A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1471A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SCLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SCLDI of the complaint and SCLDI responded on June 18, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, SCLDI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1472A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1472A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1472A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs). Based on AT&T's responses, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' LECs. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1473A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1473A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1473A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to UCPI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCPI of the complaint and UCPI responded on May 19, 2009. We find that the complaint involved a calling card for long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, UCPI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1475A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1475A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1475A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on April 28, 2009. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1476A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1476A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1476A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on January 20, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall submit or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1477A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1477A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1477A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 19, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Hawaiian Telecom and the LEC responded on June 9, 2009. We find that, based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1478A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of BNLD to respond timely or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1479A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1479A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1479A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CNB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaint. CNB has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CNB to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CNB's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules, and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-150A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint. Startec has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of Startec to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-151A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from PowerNet Global Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 30, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-152A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 26, 2008. Based on Verizon's response, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-153A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 24, 2008. Based on Advantage's response, we find that Advantage did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-154A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sure without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sure of the complaint and Sure responded on December 17, 2008. Based on Sure's response, we find that Sure did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-155A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on September 15, 2008. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clearworld's response, and we find that Clearworld's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to change local
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-156A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Yestel to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon Long Distance (VZLD) responded on December 9, 2008. VZLD states in its response that a third party verification was not found for this change in service. Consequently, we find that VZLD has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-157A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-157A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-157A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Comcast to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 24, 2008. AT&T has failed to provide a third party verification or letter of agency as proof of authorization as required by our rules. We find that AT&T has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-158A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Citizens Communication to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on December 2, 2008. Based on MCI's response, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-159A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 24, 2008. Based on MCI's response, we find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-160A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on November 21, 2008. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). Prior to the TeleUno verification, Complainant's local, interLATA, and intraLATA provider was AT&T. During the verification, TeleUno's third-party verifier confirmed that the subscriber understood that the interLATA and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-161A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 7, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on December 9, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-163A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 10, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest, and the LEC responded on December 12, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1647A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1647A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1647A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on May 7, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1648A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1648A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1648A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on April 1, 2009. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by OneLink with its response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1649A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on February 27, 2009. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneLink's response. OneLink's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-164A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Call without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Call of the complaint and Call responded on November 10, 2008. Call states that authorization was received through a letter of agency (LOA). We have reviewed the LOA Call submitted with its response. The LOA did not contain language that confirms that the subscriber understands that only one telecommunication carrier may be designated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1650A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1650A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1650A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDDI of the complaint and LDDI responded on April 22, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, LDDI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1651A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1651A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1651A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to QCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified QCC of the complaint and QCC responded on April 28, 2009. QCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state and intrastate portions of Complainant's interLATA service. International calls are part of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1652A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1652A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1652A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint. Verizon has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of Verizon to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1654A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1654A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1654A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on May 26, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state to state and intrastate portions of Complainant's interLATA service. International calls are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1655A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1655A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1655A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on January 14, 2009. UAT states that Complainant was its customer since 2002. According to Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, however, Complainant had switched to Verizon in 2004. UAT mistakenly switched Complainant back to UAT when UAT changed its underlying carrier. Therefore, we find that UAT's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1656A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1656A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1656A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on January 15, 2009. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Quasar's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1657A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1657A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1657A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on January 15, 2009. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Quasar's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Quasar has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1658A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1658A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1658A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on April 10, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MLDI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1659A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1659A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1659A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on April 17, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-165A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Affinity4 without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Affinity4 of the complaint. Affinity4 responded to the complaint on October 23, 2008. Based on Affinity4's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Affinity4's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest Communications (Qwest). Qwest has failed to respond. The failure of Qwest to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1660A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1660A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1660A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that, in each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance calls include all international calls. We conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1661A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1661A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1661A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on April 21, 2009. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and find that Clear Rate's verifier marketed internet services in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1662A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1662A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1662A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Mainstreet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mainstreet of the complaint and Mainstreet responded on April 21, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Mainstreet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1663A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1663A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1663A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 1, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that Cordia's verifier did not state that long distance includes international calls as required by our rules. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1664A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1664A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1664A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint. NLDS has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of NLDS to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1665A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1665A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1665A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cheap2Dial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaint and Cheap2Dial responded on July 9, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1666A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on April 29, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv's verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1668A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint. NECC has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of NECC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NECC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1669A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on June 24, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-166A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint. NCT has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NCT to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the Commission's carrier change rules. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted in a violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1671A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1671A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1671A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on June 4, 2009. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ATS's response. ATS's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that ATS has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1672A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1672A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1672A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. UTI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by UTI with its responses and find that, in each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance calls include all international calls. We conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1676A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1676A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1676A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sage of the complaint and Sage responded on June 23, 2009. Sage states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. Sage's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature in violation of our rules. We find that Sage has failed to produce clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1677A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1677A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1677A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on June 16, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1678A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1678A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1678A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ONETouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ONETouch of the complaint and ONETouch responded on March 25, 2009. ONETouch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ONETouch with its response and find that ONETouch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1679A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1679A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1679A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ADT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ADT of the complaint and ADT responded on June 19, 2009. We find that the complaint involved a calling card for long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, ADT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-167A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VarTec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VarTec of the complaint and VarTec responded on November 12, 2008. Based on VarTec's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VarTec's response on AT&T, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on December 18, 2008. Based on VarTec's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1680A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1680A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1680A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on January 8, 2009. UAT has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by United American Technologies in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1681A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1681A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1681A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 27, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall submit or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1682A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1682A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1682A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on February 24, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The Cordia verifier failed to convey that interLATA service includes international calls, in violation of our rules. We conclude that Cordia did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1683A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1683A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1683A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 26, 2009. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by AT&T with its response and find that AT&T's verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1684A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1684A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1684A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ABA Net, LLC to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 5, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by AT&T. AT&T did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1685A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1685A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1685A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on May 29, 2009. NSB states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall submit or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1686A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1686A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1686A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Startec Global Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 25, 2009. AT&T has submitted a third party verification (TPV) as proof of authorization for the switch. In its response, AT&T admits that, during the TPV, the customer declined the switch to AT&T, but AT&T nonetheless did not cancel the change. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1687A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1687A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1687A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint. Primus has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of Primus to respond timely or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Primus's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1688A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1688A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1688A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on June 22, 2009. Main Street's response states that the Complainant purchased Main Street's Save4Less Plan, which is a dial-around service that allows the making of domestic calls from any phone anywhere in the United States and, as such, did not require any change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1689A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1689A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1689A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLD of the complaint and PLD responded on June 17, 2009. PLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The PLD verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service as required by our rules. We conclude that PLD did not provide
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-168A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 5, 2008. Based on BNLD's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and BNLD's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on September 30, 2008. We find that, based on BNLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1690A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1690A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1690A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on June 23, 2009. ISI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ISI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1691A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1691A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1691A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on June 16, 2009. NSB states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSB with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1692A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1692A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1692A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service encopmpases all international calls. We conclude that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1693A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1693A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1693A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to UTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. In its responses, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs UTI filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls. We conclude that UTI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1698A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 15, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of operator assisted calls and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1699A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on June 10, 2009. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by SBA with its response and find that SBA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 22, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on December 9, 2008. We find that, based on MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1700A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on June 23, 2009. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UAT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1701A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on June 23, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, MSTC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1702A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BRW without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BRW of the complaint. BRW has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of BRW to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BRW's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1703A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 22, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of operator assisted calls and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1705A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to KTNT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified KTNT of the complaint and KTNT responded on June 3, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of operator assisted calls and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, KTNT did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1706A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on July 8, 2009. MCI states that a MCI representative erroneously added Complainant's telephone number to another MCI account. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1707A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLD of the complaint and PLD responded on June 16, 2009. PLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV, PLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1708A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on June 29, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, MSTC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1710A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on July 13, 2009. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Spectrotel with its response and find that Spectrotel has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1711A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on July 10, 2009. Comcast states that Complainant's service was switched due to an error made by one of its representatives. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Comcast's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1713A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on April 1, 2009. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on June 22, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1715A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that in each case, Silv's third-party verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1716A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 7, 2009. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1887A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1887A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1887A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Credo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Credo of the complaint and Credo responded on May 1, 2009. Credo has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Credo in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1890A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1890A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1890A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaints and Cheap2Dial responded. We find that the complaints involve dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1892A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1892A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1892A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to American Select without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified American Select of the complaint and American Select responded on July 9, 2009. American Select states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with American Select's response. American Select's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber and failed to confirm the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1893A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1893A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1893A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on June 30, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with MLDI's response. Commission rules state in relevant part: ``Any description of the carrier change transaction by a third party verifier must not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1894A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1894A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1894A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on November 6, 2008. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDS's response. Commission rules state in relevant part: ``Any description of the carrier change transaction by a third party verifier must not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1895A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1895A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1895A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 30, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1896A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1896A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1896A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 13, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1897A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1897A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1897A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on April 22, 2009. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. LSI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that LSI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1898A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1898A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1898A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaint and FRLD responded on July 15, 2009. FRLD states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. FRLD's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature and it also includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that FRLD
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1899A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1899A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1899A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaint and FRLD responded on August 5, 2009. FRLD states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. FRLD's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature and it also includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that FRLD
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1900A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1900A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1900A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDMI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDMI of the complaint and LDMI responded on July 29, 2009. LDMI states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. LDMI's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature and it also includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that LDMI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1901A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1901A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1901A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on July 15, 2009. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LSI's response. LSI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that LSI has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1902A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1902A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1902A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on July 28, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1903A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1903A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1903A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 22, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response. Silv's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Silv has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1904A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1904A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1904A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 13, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1905A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1905A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1905A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel Communications, LLC (WilTel) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on July 8, 2008. WilTel states that it received an order from its reseller Silv Communications (Silv) for Complainant's telecommunications service. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv forwarded the complaint to America Net LLC (America
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1906A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1906A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1906A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 27, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response. Silv's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Silv has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1907A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1907A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1907A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that interLATA service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1908A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1908A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1908A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 24, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by NLDS; however, NLDS did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1909A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1909A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1909A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on July 21, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by CRC; however, CRC did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that CRC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1910A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1910A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1910A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within the required 30-days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1911A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1911A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1911A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint MCI responded July 9, 2009. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1912A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1912A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1912A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 22, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Silv's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1913A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1913A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1913A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on August 5, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response. NCT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1914A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 13, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response. NCT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1915A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1915A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1915A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on May 7, 2009. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV filed with Quasar's response. Quasar's verifier, however, only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state-to-state and intrastate portions of Complainant's interLATA service. International calls
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1918A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on August 11, 2009. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We have reviewed the TPV filed with UTI's response. UTI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1919A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Universal without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Universal of the complaint and Universal responded on August 17, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Universal did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1920A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on June 10, 2008. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Preferred's response, and we find that Preferred's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1921A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on July 1, 2009. CRC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CRC's response. Clear World's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that CRC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1923A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCTI of the complaint and NCTI responded on June 1, 2009. NCTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV NCTI filed with its response. NCTI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1924A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on January 21, 2009. Sprint states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Sprint's response and find that Sprint's LOA did not, amongst other things, contain language stating that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1925A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to TeleDias without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaints. TeleDias response states that authorization was received through third party verifications (TPVs). In each case, TeleDias's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the TPV was authorized to make a carrier change, in violation of our rules. Therefore, we find that TeleDias's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1927A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 25, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDM without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDM of the complaint and LDM responded on July 9, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a calling card for long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, LDM did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1947A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CNB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNB of the complaints and CNB responded. In its responses, CNB stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs CNB submitted with the responses and find that the audio recordings were partially inaudible and, thus, not sufficiently clear and convincing in order to permit
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1948A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls. We conclude that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1949A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 9, 2009. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 17, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Vonage, and the LEC responded on August 4, 2009. Vonage has fully absolved the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1951A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 4, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on August 7, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1952A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 24, 2009. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1953A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on February 7, 2009. Clear Rate did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. We find that Clear Rate has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1954A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. Cordia states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Cordia with its responses and find that, in each case, Cordia's third-party verifier did not convey that long distance service includes international calls. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1955A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls. We conclude that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1956A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cheap2Dial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaint and Cheap2Dial responded on March 23, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1957A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCs without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCs of the complaint. LDCs have failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDCs to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDCs's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2105A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on August 7, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2106A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 21, 2009. AT&T's response states that the complaint involves a billing issue and not a charge of presubscribed services. Based on AT&T's response, we find that AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2107A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2107A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2107A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 27, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by AT&T. AT&T did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2108A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2108A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2108A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Crossing Telecommunications to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 28, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by Verizon. Verizon response's states that it was unable to find and, thus, did not provide a third party verification or letter of agency for Complainant, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Verizon's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2110A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2110A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2110A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus Telecommunications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 21, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by AT&T. AT&T's response states that it was unable to find and, thus, did not provide a third party verification (TPV) for Complainant, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2112A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2112A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2112A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on August 6, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by PNG. PNG did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2114A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2114A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2114A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days of receiving the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2116A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IBN Intertele Com to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 26, 2009. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier confirmed that Complainant wanted her existing long distance service including international calls switched to AT&T. Near the end of the TPV,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VoiceNet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VoiceNet of the complaint. VoiceNet has failed to respond within 30 days to the complaint. The failure of VoiceNet to respond or provide proof of the verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that VoiceNet's actions resulted in a violation of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2142A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on August 6, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response and find that NSBI has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on July 10, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response and find that Silv has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2306A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from DC Communications to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on September 16, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with MLDI's response and find that MLDI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2307A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on August 14, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with CNBI's response and find that CNBI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2308A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on August 21, 2009. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleUno's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2309A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2309A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2309A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on September 4, 2009. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleUno's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2310A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2310A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2310A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clearworld without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaint and Clearworld responded on September 1, 2009. Clearworld states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clearworld's response. Clearworld's verifier, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Clearworld has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2311A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2311A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2311A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 9, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NCT with its response. NCT's verifier, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that NCT has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2312A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2312A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2312A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on June 18, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response. Silv's verifier, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Silv has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2313A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2313A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2313A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaint and FRLD responded on August 14, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, FRLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2314A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2314A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2314A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on July 31, 2009. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleDias's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2315A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2315A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2315A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on June 18, 2009. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleDias's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2316A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2316A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2316A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Call for Less without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Call for Less of the complaint and Call for Less responded on August 18, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Call for Less did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2317A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2317A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2317A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on August 10, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. CNBI's verifier, however, stated, ``I just need a minute of your time to verify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2318A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2318A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2318A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on March 4, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. LDA's verifier, however, stated, ``I just need a minute of your time to verify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2319A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2319A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2319A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 16, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NCT's response. NCT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses international calls. We find that NCT has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2320A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 16, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. NCT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that NCT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2321A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on March 24, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. LDS's verifier, however, stated, ``I just need a minute of your time to verify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2322A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on July 9, 2009. NCT did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Failure to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2323A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on August 31, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NALD's response and find that NALD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2324A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comtel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtel of the complaint and Comtel responded on December 10, 2008. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Comtel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2325A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on September 21, 2008. TeleUno states that it cannot provide the third party verification. We find that TeleUno has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2326A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on August 31, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NSBI's response and find that NSBI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2327A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on September 9, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with BNLD's response and find that BNLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2328A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on August 17, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NSBI's response and find that NSBI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2329A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on August 18, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NLDS's response and find that NLDS's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2330A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that, in each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance calls include all international calls. We conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2333A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRCI of the complaint and CRCI responded on September 2, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by CRCI; however, CRCI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that CRCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2334A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that, in each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance calls include all international calls. We conclude that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2335A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on July 9, 2009. We find that, based on its response TeleUno did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2336A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 9, 2009. We find that, based on Verizon's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2337A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on June 15, 2009. We find that, based on its response, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2338A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Vartec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comtel Telcom Assets LP (Comtel) of the complaint and Vartec responded on July 28, 2009. We find that, based on Vartec's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Vartec did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2341A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from its authorized carrier to NET without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NET of the complaint. NET has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NET to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NET's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2342A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2342A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2342A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 35, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2343A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2343A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2343A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on June 16, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. NSBI's verifier, however, stated, ``I just need a minute of your time to verify
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2345A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2345A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2345A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls. We conclude that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2346A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2346A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2346A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, the verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls. We conclude that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2347A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2347A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2347A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDAI of the complaint and LDAI responded on July 30, 2009. LDAI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDAI's response. Commission rules state in relevant part: ``Any description of the carrier change transaction by a third party verifier must not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2348A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2348A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2348A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Pulse without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pulse of the complaint. Pulse has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Pulse to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Pulse's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2349A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to TeleDias without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaints and TeleDias responded. TeleDias states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by TeleDias with its responses and find that, in each case, TeleDias's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2350A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2350A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2350A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 8, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on August 7, 2009. Verizon has fully absolved the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2351A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VoiceNet of the complaints and VoiceNet responded. We find that the complaints involve dial-around long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, VoiceNet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2352A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2352A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2352A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 25, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. Silv's verifier, however, stated, ``We are recording this conversation for quality control and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2353A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2353A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2353A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 4, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. Silv's verifier, however, stated, ``We are recording this conversation for quality control and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2354A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2354A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2354A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on March 2, 2009. UAT admits in its response that it mistakenly switched Complainant's service during its change to a new underlying carrier. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that UAT's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2355A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaints and Cheap2Dial responded. We find that the complaints involve a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2408A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI, Inc. to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on October 22, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls. We conclude that Cordia did not provide clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2459A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox to AT&T, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 25, 2009. AT&T states that although the customer's services were changed to AT&T in 2004, no records exist to provide further details concerning the customer's request for AT&T services. AT&T adds that Complainant's services were discontinued in May 2008, and the customer's services
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2460A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on September 18, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier failed to convey that long distance service includes all international calls, in violation of the Commission's rules. We conclude that Cordia
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2461A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2461A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2461A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 20, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on June 4, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2550A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on March 13, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Cordia has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2555A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on June 8, 2009. Verizon has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Verizon in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-443A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-443A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-443A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 19, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The verifier only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state to state and intrastate portions of Complainant's interLATA service. International calls are
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-444A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-444A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-444A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Sprint Nextel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint Nextel of the complaint and Sprint Nextel responded on November 12, 2008. Based on Sprint Nextel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Sprint Nextel's response on Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on January 6, 2009. Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-445A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-445A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-445A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Windstream to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 13, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Windstream, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded on December 22, 2008. Based on MCI's response and the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-446A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-446A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-446A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Arizona to Zero Plus Dialing (ZPDI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ZPDI of the complaint. USBI responded on September 2, 2008, on behalf of ZPDI. USBI stated in its response that it forwarded the complaint to New Century. Attached to USBI's response was a New Century response and a third party verification recording (TPV) as evidence that New Century had authorization to change Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-447A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-447A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-447A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on December 15, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. The third-party verifier asked the person on the recording, ``[y]ou do authorize Silv Communication to be your interstate and intrastate long distance service provider for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-448A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-448A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-448A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to US Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified US Telecom of the complaint and US Telecom responded on October 28, 2008. US Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by US Telecom's with its response and find that US Telecom's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-449A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 19, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's resonse. The third-party verifier asked the person on the recording, ``[y]ou do authorize Silv Communication to be your interstate and intrastate long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-450A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-450A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-450A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Primus to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDS responded on November 26, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDA's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-451A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-451A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-451A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Pulse Telecom to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 8, 2008. Cox admits that there is no third-party verification or letter of agency for the 2008 switch of Complainant's phone number, as required by our rules. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized the 2008
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-452A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-452A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-452A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from WDT to Primo without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primo of the complaint and Primo responded on September 15, 2008. Primo states in its response that authorization was received from the Complainant. However, Primo has failed to submit a third party verification or letter of agency as proof of authorization as required by our rules. Consequently, we find that Primo has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-453A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-453A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-453A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ATS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaint and ATS responded on December 29, 2008. ATS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with ATS's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that ATS has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-455A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-455A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-455A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on December 17, 2008. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Preferred Billing's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-457A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-457A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-457A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest Communications to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 4, 2008. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through letter of agency (LOA). We have reviewed the LOA filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-458A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-458A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-458A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint. NSB has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSB to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSB's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-459A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-459A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-459A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint. Cordia has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cordia to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-460A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-460A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-460A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint. MCI responded to the complaint on December 1, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), BITC. BITC has failed to respond. The failure of BITC to respond or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-462A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-462A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-462A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from USA Datanet to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint. CTS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CTS to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-463A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-463A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-463A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Embarq to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 29, 2008. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-464A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-464A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-464A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VZLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VZLD of the complaint and VZLD responded on November 26, 2008. Based on VZLD's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and VZLD's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on December 18, 2008. We find that, based on VZLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-465A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-465A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-465A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on December 3, 2008. Cavalier admits that in the process of converting to a different underlying carrier, some former customers' ``PIC codes'' were switched in error. We find that Cavalier has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-466A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on October 29, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response, and we find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for interLATA and intraLATA services, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-480A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint. MCI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of MCI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-481A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on February 12, 2009. Broadview states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). Broadview's verifier, however, failed to elicit the identity of subscriber, as required by our rules. We find that Broadview has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-482A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-482A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-482A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verifications is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of violations. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in violations of our carrier change rules and we discuss LDC's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-483A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-483A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-483A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDD of the complaint and LDD responded on February 4, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, LDD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-484A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-484A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-484A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on February 9, 2009. Cox states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cox with its response and find that Cox has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-485A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-485A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-485A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-486A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-486A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-486A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint. MCI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of MCI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-487A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-487A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-487A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint. PNG has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of PNG to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that PNG's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-495A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-495A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-495A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified RRLD of the complaint. In its response, RRLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and determined that RRLD's TPV was not intelligible. The Division, therefore, found that RRLD did not provide clear and convincing evidence of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-496A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-496A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-496A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified RRLD of the complaint. In its response, RRLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and determined it was unclear from the verification whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. During
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-497A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Sure without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sure of the complaints. Sure has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Sure to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Sure's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-498A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-498A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-498A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. In each case, Cordia's verifier, failed to elicit the date of the verification as required by our rules. Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainants authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-499A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-499A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-499A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in violations of our carrier change rules and we discuss LDC's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-500A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-500A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-500A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Preferred Billing with its responses and find that Preferred Billing has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-501A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-501A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-501A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to Multiline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Multiline of the complaint. Multiline has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Multiline to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Multiline's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier rules discuss Multiline's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-502A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-502A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-502A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-503A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-503A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-503A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BPS Telephone to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MetTel of the complaint and MetTel responded on November 19, 2008. MetTel has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MetTel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-504A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-504A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-504A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 5, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Silv's response and find that Silv's verifier failed to obtain a separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-505A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-505A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-505A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on January 20, 2009. We find that, based on Excel's response, there was a billing error and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, Excel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-506A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-506A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-506A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 29, 2008. Qwest states it received preferred interchange carrier confirmation to switch Complainant's service from Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we then notified Complainant's LEC, of the complaint and Verizon responded. Based on Qwest's response,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-507A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-507A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-507A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified RRLD of the complaint. In its response, RRLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Division reviewed the TPV filed with RRLD's response and determined it was unclear from the verification whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier change. During
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-508A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Line System without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line System of the complaint. Line System has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Line System to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Line System's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-509A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LightWave without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LightWave of the complaint. LightWave has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LightWave to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LightWave's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-510A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-510A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-510A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ESBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ESBI of the complaint and ESBI responded on August 22, 2008. ESBI states that Complainant used ESBI carrier assess code to make long distance calls on a per call basis; we find that ESBI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-511A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cheap2Dial without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cheap2Dial of the complaint and Cheap2Dial responded on October 23, 2008. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Cheap2Dial did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-512A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Broadview without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Broadview of the complaint and Broadview responded on September 25, 2008. Broadview states that authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA filed with Broadview's response and find that Broadview's LOA failed to confirm any of the telephone numbers to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-513A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss NSBI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-514A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint. Silv has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Silv to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss Silv's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-515A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant complaint on October 1, 2008, alleging that Complainant telecommunications service provider had been changed from their authorized carrier to Nationwide without Complainant authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Nationwide of the complaint. Nationwide has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Nationwide to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Nationwide's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-516A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on May 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Capital Telecommunications, Inc. (CTI Communications) to MetTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified MetTel of the complaint. In response, MetTel stated that it became the long distance service provider for Complainant on or about January 22, 2008, via purchasing the subscriber base of CTI Communications in January 2008. The Division determined that MetTel failed to file a letter notification with the Commission concerning the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-517A1.txt
  • pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on February 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded stating that the Complainant's calls defaulted to the AT&T network due to a routing or switch error from the customer's local phone company, Verizon. Based on AT&T's response, the Division served the complaint on Verizon, and Verizon responded stating that Complainant's calls were ``routed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-518A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on April 21, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from IDT to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint. In response, AT&T stated that Complainant's carrier or the carrier involved in the alleged switching of telephone service is a carrier that purchases from AT&T certain telecommunications services identified as AT&T Network Connection Service (ANC). Based on AT&T's response, the Division notified Embarq, Complainant's local exchange carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-519A1.txt
  • of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on June 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T Corporation (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified AT&T of the complaint. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Qwest of the complaint. Qwest failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by our rules. Because Qwest failed to respond to the complaint,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-520A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-520A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-520A1.txt
  • must pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received a complaint on September 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Main Street of the complaint. In response, Main Street stated it received authorization when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. The Division determined that the LOA did not contain, among other several missing pieces of required information, language that confirms that the subscriber may consult with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-698A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-698A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-698A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NSB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints. NSB has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of NSB to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSB's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss NSB's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-699A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LSI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaints. LSI has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service providers and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-700A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-700A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-700A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint. Cordia has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Cordia to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-701A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-701A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-701A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 13, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint. Birch has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Birch to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Birch's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-702A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-702A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-702A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Birch Communications to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on July 30, 2008. Zoom states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Zoom submitted with its response. The verifier only confirmed that Complainant wanted to switch the state to state and intrastate portions of Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-703A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-703A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-703A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to FRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaint. FRLD has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of FRLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that FRLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-704A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-704A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-704A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-705A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint. ATC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of ATC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that ATC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-706A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Mediacom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mediacom of the complaint. Mediacom has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Mediacom to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Mediacom's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-707A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint. NSBI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NSBI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NSBI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-708A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 4, 2008. AT&T states that the customer's interLATA and intraLATA services were switched to AT&T as a result of an order placed for a business customer, and a ``blanket'' letter of agency (LOA) was completed to verify the transaction. It states a blanket LOA
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-709A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 17, 2008. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDCB's response, and we find that LDCB's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-710A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 18, 2008. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with LDA's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that LDA has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-711A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NSB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. In its responses, NSB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NSB filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-712A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-713A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on November 28, 2008. NSB states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on December 11, 2008. In its response, BNLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV BNLD filed with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-715A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-715A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-715A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 7, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 5, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall submit or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-716A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-716A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-716A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaints and NSB responded. In its responses, BNLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs BNLD filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-720A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-720A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-720A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaints and FRLD responded. We find that the complaints involve dial-around long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, FRLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-721A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-721A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-721A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on February 11, 2009. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Verizon with its response and find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-722A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-722A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-722A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 16, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Touchtone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Touchtone of the complaint. Touchtone has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Touchtone to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Touchtone's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-723A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-723A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-723A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on February 25, 2009. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred with its response and find that Preferred has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-724A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-724A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-724A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Cordia without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. Cordia states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Cordia with its responses and find that in each case, Cordia's third-party verifier failed to elicit the date of the verification, in violation of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-725A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-725A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-725A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Zoom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaint and Zoom responded on January 22, 2009. Zoom states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Zoom filed with its response. Zoom's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to Zoom's long distance service ``for state to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-726A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-726A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-726A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on February 20, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Cordia submitted with its response. Although Cordia's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call selected Cordia as its long distance service provider, the verifier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-727A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-727A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-727A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on February 4, 2009. Quasar states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Quasar submitted with its response. Quasar's third-party verifier confirmed that the person on the call wanted to subscribe to Quasar's long distance service for instate and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-918A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-918A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-918A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Dialtone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Dialtone of the complaint and Dialtone responded on March 2, 2009. Dialtone states that authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed and it provides information purportedly submitted by Complainant. We have reviewed the information filed with Dialtone's response. Dialtone did not submit a copy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-919A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-919A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-919A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDDI of the complaint and LDDI responded on March 25, 2009. LDDI states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. LDDI's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature and it also includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that LDDI
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-920A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-920A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-920A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UCP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UCP of the complaint and UCP responded on March 5, 2009. UCP states authorization was received and confirmed when an electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. UCP's LOA, however, does not contain an electronic signature and it also includes an inducement in violation of our rules. We find that UCP
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-921A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on July 29, 2008. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by America Net with its response and find that America Net has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-922A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-922A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-922A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to VLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified VLD of the complaint and VLD responded on March 6, 2009. VLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by VLD with its response and find that VLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-923A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-923A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-923A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 17, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-924A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-924A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-924A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 17, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-925A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-925A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-925A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 6, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-926A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-926A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-926A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 19, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-927A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 5, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-928A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-928A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-928A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint. NCT has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of NCT to respond within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NCT's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss NCT's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-929A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-929A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-929A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint. Silv has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Silv to respond within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss Silv's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-932A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-932A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-932A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 31, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-933A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-933A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-933A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-934A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-934A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-934A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCC of the complaint. MCC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of MCC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that MCC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-935A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-935A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-935A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 26, 2009. We find that, based on Qwest's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-938A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-938A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-938A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on February 24, 2009. NSB states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSB with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-939A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-939A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-939A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Dialtone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Dialtone of the complaint and Dialtone responded on March 18, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by Dialtone; however, Dialtone did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Dialtone's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-940A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-940A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-940A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss LSI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-941A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-941A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-941A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-942A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-942A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-942A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on February 24, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-943A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-943A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-943A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on February 3, 2009. CWC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CWC's response. CWC's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that CWC has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-944A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on February 17, 2009. CWC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CWC's response. Clear World's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that CWC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-945A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints. MCI has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of MCI to respond or provide proof of verification within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-946A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 12, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-947A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 26, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Silv with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-948A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CFLI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CFLI of the complaint and CFLI responded on March 20, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, CFLI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-949A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-949A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MSTC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MSTC of the complaint and MSTC responded on March 12, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, MSTC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDD of the complaint and LDD responded on March 11, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, LDD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-951A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on March 26, 2009. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred with its response and find that Preferred has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-952A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 31, 2009. Silv states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV Silv filed with its response. Silv's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Silv has failed to produce
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-953A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sure without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sure of the complaint and Sure responded on April 15, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Sure did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-954A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-954A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-954A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on July 14, 2089. NALD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NALD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-955A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-955A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-955A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on November 10, 2089. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-956A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-956A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-956A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on December 1, 2008. Preferred states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Preferred with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-957A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-957A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-957A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AOI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AOI of the complaint and AOI responded on July 21, 2008. AOI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by AOI's with its response and find that AOI's verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-958A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Integrated without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Integrated of the complaint and Integrated responded on October 29, 2008. Integrated states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Integrated with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-959A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. Silv states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Silv with its responses and find that, in each case, Silv's verifier, failed to convey that long distance service include international calls. We find that Silv
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-960A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints. BNLD has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of BNLD to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in unauthorized changes in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss BNLD's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-961A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV's that BNLD submitted with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no telecommunications carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-962A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications services providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NSBI submitted with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no telecommunications carrier shall
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-963A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-963A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-963A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from BigRedWire.Com, Inc. to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 2, 2009. AT&T states that Complainant's service was switched, to AT&T effective November 8, 2006, and a service order was initiated on November 8, 2006, via an AT&T vendor. AT&T further states that due to a system error, this order did not complete until November 8,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-964A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 3, 2008. AT&T stated that Complainant's calls defaulted to the AT&T network due to a routing or switch error from the Complainant's local phone company, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-965A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS indicates that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications. In each case, the verifier, confirmed that the person on the call understood that ``this is a new long distance service,'' (emphasis added) but did not confirm that the person wanted to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-966A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-966A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-966A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Consumer without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer of the complaints and Consumer responded. Consumer states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV's). We have reviewed the TPV's submitted by Consumer with its responses and find that in each case Consumer's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service sold, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-967A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-968A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on January 20, 2009. In its response, BNLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV BNLD filed with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-969A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-969A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-969A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed AT&T, Inc. to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on November 6, 2008. We find that the complaint pertains to a billing issue and not a switch of carriers. Therefore, we find that Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-970A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-970A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-970A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PNG without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PNG of the complaint and PNG responded on January 21, 2009. Based on PNG's response, we find that PNG did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-971A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-971A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-971A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T and Total Call to Line without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Line of the complaint. Line has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Line to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Line's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-972A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-972A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-972A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 4, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from McLeod USA to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 8, 2009. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-973A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-973A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-973A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on August 1, 2008. In its response, MLDI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV MLDI filed with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-974A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-974A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-974A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cavalier to AT&T, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 17, 2008. Upon review of AT&T's response, further information was needed from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Cavalier. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint. Cavalier has failed to respond to the complaint. Therefore, we find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-975A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI and MCI responded on December 18, 2008. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, Inc., and the LEC responded on February 2, 2009. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-976A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 5, 2008. Silv states that authorization was received through a third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o telecommunications carrier shall submit or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-977A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Access One Communications to XO without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified XO of the complaint and XO responded on July 31, 2008. The complaint states that three of the lines of the Complainant were slammed by XO. XO responded that all twenty-seven lines, including the three in question, were ported to XO on June 28, 2007. XO states that Allegiance Telecom was providing service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-978A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 17, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on October 15, 2008. In its response, NLDS stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV NLDS filed with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-979A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to Working Assets without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Working Assets of the complaint and Credo responded on October 31, 2008. Credo's response stated that it failed to obtain authorization for the Arizona telephone number of the Complainant. We conclude that Credo did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Complainant wanted to change its carrier service. Therefore, Credo violated the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-980A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 5, 2008. AT&T's response required additional information from the local exchange carrier, (LEC), Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon. Verizon has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days, admitting that its lateness was due to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-981A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint. AT&T responded, on November 12, 2008, but further information was needed from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint. Verizon has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days, admitting that its lateness was due
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-982A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and Verizon on behalf of MCI responded on December 18, 2008. MCI stated in its response that Complainant's local exchange carrier, CenturyTel, failed to remove MCI as the long distance carrier for Complainant. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CenturyTel of the complaint. CenturyTel
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-983A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 31, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from CoVista LP to Total Telecommunications (Total) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Total of the complaint. Total responded and stated that the Complainant had never been a customer. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint. Verizon failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days, admitting that its lateness was due to a ``calendaring error.'' The failure
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-984A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from NECC Telecom to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint and Sprint responded. Sprint's response required further information from the local exchange carrier, Verizon. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon. Verizon failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days, admitting that its lateness was due to a ``calendaring error.'' The failure of Verizon to respond
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-985A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-985A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-985A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from ABA Net to NECC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NECC of the complaint and NECC responded on December 4, 2008. NECC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NECC with its response and find that NECC's verifier failed to confirm the phone number to be switched and failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-986A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-986A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-986A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2008, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 29, 2008. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Alaska Communications Systems, and the LEC responded on March 9, 2009. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-987A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-987A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-987A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NLDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaints and NLDS responded. In its responses, NLDS stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NLDS filed with its responses. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``[n]o
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1153A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded February 26, 2010. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Birch with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1154A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on March 17, 2009. LSI's response states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LSI with its response. The Commission rules state that a carrier's sales representative must drop off the call once connection between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1155A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on May 21, 2009. LSI's response states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have viewed the TPV submitted by LSI with its response. The Commission rules state that a carrier's sales representative must drop off the call once connection between
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1156A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLDI of the complaint and PLDI responded on December 22, 2009. PLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by PLDI with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1158A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from MCI to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on January 5, 2010. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1159A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to MLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLD of the complaint and MLD responded on December 22, 2009. MLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). MLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by MLD with its response and find that the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1160A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on December 10, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1199A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1199A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1199A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on June 22, 2010. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that UTI filed with its response. UTI's verifier, stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1200A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1200A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1200A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to United Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United Telecom of the complaint and United Telecom responded on April 23, 2010. United Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV that United Telecom filed with its response. United Telecom's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1201A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 25, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on March 29, 2010. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response, SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1202A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1202A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1202A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on March 31, 2010. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1203A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1203A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1203A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on May 27, 2010. We find that MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1204A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on March 10, 2009. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneLink's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call is authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1205A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1205A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1205A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 30, 2010. We find that the complaint involves new service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1206A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to AT&T without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs). Based on AT&T's responses, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaints and AT&T's responses on Complainants' LECs. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1207A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1207A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1207A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on April 28, 2010. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred Billing submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1208A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1208A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1208A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on March 18, 2010. Based on MCI's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest Communications, Inc., and the LEC responded on April 6, 2010. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1209A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1209A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1209A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 18, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CBS of the complaint and CBS responded on April 29, 2010. CBS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). CBS states that, due to a recording failure, it is unable to provide the TPV, as required by our rules. We find that CBS did not provide clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1210A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1210A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1210A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on March 25, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1211A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1211A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1211A1.txt
  • all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Citizens Communications Company (Citizens) of the complaint and Citizens responded on March 9, 2010. Based on Citizens response, we notified PNG of the complaint. PNG has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of PNG to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1212A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1212A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1212A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pioneer of the complaints and Pioneer responded. Pioneer admits that it switched Complainants' service without obtaining Complainants' authorizations during the switch of Pioneer's underlying carrier. We find that Pioneer has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Pioneer's actions did result in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1213A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1213A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1213A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on June 18, 2009. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleDias's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1214A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1214A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1214A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 18, 2009. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Startec's response, and we find that the verifier sought to market Startec's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Startec
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1215A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1215A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1215A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 18, 2010. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and Verizon responded on April 22, 2010. We find that, based on Sprint's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1216A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1216A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1216A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communications Corp. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 20, 2010. Based on Qwest response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on May 6, 2010. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1217A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1217A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1217A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FRLD of the complaint and FRLD responded on April 20, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, FRLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1218A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1218A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1218A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 2, 2009. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), TDS Telephone & Telegraph Co., and the LEC responded on April 21, 2010. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1219A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1219A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1219A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on December 17, 2009. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Startec's response, and we find that the verifier marketed Startec's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Startec has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1220A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1220A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1220A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on March 30, 2010. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1221A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1221A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1221A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on March 22, 2010. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response and find that Clear Rate's verifier marketed Clear Rate's services, in violation of our rules. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1222A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1222A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1222A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPV that LDS submitted with its response. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1382A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1382A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1382A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served MCI on September 10, 2009, and MCI responded on October 9, 2009. Based on MCI's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 3, 2010. AT&T admits that a system problem with AT&T's equipment caused
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1383A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on March 25, 2010. FSN's response states it is attaching a notarized transcript of the subscriber's electronic verification and the system record of the transaction. We have reviewed FSN's attachments filed with its response and find that FSN obtained Complainant's electronic authorization to submit the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1384A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on February 3, 2010. We find that, based on Qwest's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Qwest did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1385A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on May 21, 2010. We find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1386A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLD of the complaints and MLD responded. In its responses, MLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that MLD filed with its responses. In each case, MLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``confirm and verify account
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1387A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDAI of the complaint and LDAI responded on May 27, 2010. LDAI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDAI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1388A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on February 2, 2010. CRC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that CRC submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1389A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on March 5, 2010. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv filed with its response. Silv's verifier, stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1390A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on April 23, 2010. Birch states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). Birch's verifier, however, failed to confirm each of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules. We find that Birch has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1391A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on April 7, 2010. We find that, based on its response, and telephone bill submitted by Complainant, the charge in question was a result of an operator assisted collect call from Mexico and not an unauthorized switch. Thus, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1392A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. In its responses, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that UTI filed with its responses. In each case, UTI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1393A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1393A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1393A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1394A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on March 31, 2010. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLDI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1395A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 12, 2010. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1396A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on February 22, 2010. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1397A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by TeleUno with its responses and find that, in each case, TeleUno's verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1399A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. 4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NSBI submitted with its responses. During the course of each TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1400A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1400A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1400A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 3, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1404A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 10, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on March 31, 2010. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that Clear Rate's verifier marketed Clear Rate's services, in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1405A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on March 11, 2010. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLDI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1406A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1406A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1406A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LaurenTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LaurenTel of the complaint. LaurenTel has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LaurenTel to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LaurenTel's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1407A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 29, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, the complaint involves a billing error and not a change in carriers. Thus, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1409A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that Preferred Billing submitted with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1411A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV's NSBI filed with its responses. In each case, NSBI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1412A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to NSBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaints and NSBI responded. NSBI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPVs NSBI filed with its responses. In each case, NSBI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the purpose
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1413A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1413A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1413A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 8, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NALD's response and find that NALD's verifier stated, ``I need a minute of your time to verify and confirm your account information''.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1414A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1414A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1414A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on August 31, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted with NALD's response and find that NALD's verifier stated, ``I need a minute of your time to verify and confirm your account information''.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1415A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1415A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1415A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to TeleUno without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaints and TeleUno responded. TeleUno admits in its responses that, in each case, due to a workstation error, the verification company is unable to provide a copy of the verification. TeleUno has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1416A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1416A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1416A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MLDI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaints and MLDI responded. In its responses, MLDI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs MLDI filed with its responses. In each case, verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1419A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on December 22, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1420A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NSB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSB of the complaint and NSB responded on March 16, 2010. NSB states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSB submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1421A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1422A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Unitel Communications Group, Inc. to AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint. AT&T responded on November 16, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T Illinois. AT&T Illinois has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of AT&T Illinois to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1424A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond timely or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1425A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1425A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1425A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served AT&T on December 10, 2009, and AT&T responded on January 7, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Qwest responded on April 6, 2010. Qwest states that when AT&T disconnected Complainant's account on its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1427A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to GTL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified GTL of the complaint and GTL responded on July 10, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the charges in question were a result of operator assisted calls and not an unauthorized switch. Moreover, Global Tel*Link's response is supported by the phone bill submitted by Complainant. Thus, GTL did not violate our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1428A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1428A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1428A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on August 31, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1429A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1429A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1429A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on December 4, 2009. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with TeleUno's response, and we find that TeleUno's verifier failed to obtain confirmation that the person on the call wa authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1430A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1430A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1430A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on February 4, 2010. CRC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that CRC submitted with its response. We have reviewed the TPV filed with CRC's response, and we find that CRC's verifier marketed CRC's services,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1431A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1431A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1431A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on September 22, 2009. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Startec's response, and we find that Startec's verifier marketed Startec's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Startec has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1432A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1432A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1432A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on August 10, 2010. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLDI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1433A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1433A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1433A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint and LSI responded on June 8, 2010. LSI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed by LSI. LSI's sales agent failed to drop off the line once the three-way connection was established and was overheard speaking to the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1434A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1434A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1434A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on May 6, 2010. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with UTI's response, and we find that UTI's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-158A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-158A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-158A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telcom of the complaint and Consumer Telcom responded on June 30, 2009. Consumer Telcom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV), we have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telcom's response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-159A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-159A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-159A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on October 6, 2009. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Advantage's response and find that Advantage's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-160A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint and OneLink responded on April 3, 2009. OneLink states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneLink's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1613A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. In its responses, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that UTI filed with its responses. In each case, UTI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and data
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1614A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1614A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1614A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on September 25, 2009. TeleUno states that the third party verification (TPV) company is unable to provide a copy of the TPV due to a workstation error. We find that TeleUno did not provide a TPV or letter of agency authorizing the carrier change. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1615A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1615A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1615A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1616A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1616A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1616A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaints, and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI. We find that, based on Verizon's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1617A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1617A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1617A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to SelecTel without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SelecTel of the complaints and SelecTel responded. SelecTel states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by SelecTel with its responses and find that, in each case, SelecTel's third-party verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1618A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1618A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1618A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on April 16, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1619A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1619A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1619A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 25, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NCT submitted with its response. NCT's verifier, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-161A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Airnex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Airnex of the complaint and Airnex responded on July 13, 2009. We find that, based on Airnex's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Airnex did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1620A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1620A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1620A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 3, 2009. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response. SBA's verifier, however, failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make a carrier change. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1621A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on May 20, 2010. TeleUno states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). TeleUno, however, states that it was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions resulted in an unauthorized change
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1622A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1623A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1623A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1623A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on January 28, 2010. We find that, based on its response, a switch did not occur. Moreover, Complainant did not provide evidence indicating a switch to BNLD. Thus, BNLD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1624A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1624A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1624A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 22, 2010. Verizon states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). Although submitting an asserted transcript of the TPV, Verizon did not submit the audio recording of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1625A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1625A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1625A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDAI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDAI of the complaint and LDAI responded on July 1, 2010. LDAI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. LDAI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that LDAI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1626A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1626A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1626A1.txt
  • unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Windstream Communications to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Sprint on April 16, 2010, and Sprint responded on May 7, 2010. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Windstream, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Windstream responded on August 3, 2010. Windstream states that a glitch occurred in routing of long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1627A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1627A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1627A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on June 24, 2010. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). In its response, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that UTI filed with its responses. UTI's verifier,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1628A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1628A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1628A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 7, 2010. Based on Qwest's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Level 3 Communications LLC (Level 3), and the LEC responded on July 23, 2010. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-162A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Primus without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Primus of the complaint and Primus responded on August 3, 2009. We find that, based on Primus's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Primus did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1632A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1632A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1632A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on April 29, 2009. We find that, based on Verizon's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1633A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1633A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1633A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on December 30, 2009. We find that, based on Verizon's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1636A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1636A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1636A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served AT&T on March 12, 2010, and AT&T responded on April 2, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 6, 2010. Verizon states that an order was issued in January, 2008,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1637A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1637A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1637A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to PLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLDI of the complaint and PLDI responded on March 26, 2010. PLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by PLDI with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1638A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1638A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1638A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 9, 2010. AT&T states authorization was received and confirmed when a electronic letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA that AT&T submitted with its response. AT&T's LOA does not contain language confirming that the subscriber understands that only
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1639A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1639A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1639A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Multiline without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Multiline of the complaint and Multiline responded on March 22, 2010. We have reviewed the response submitted by Multiline. Multiline states that a third party verification (TPV) was submitted with its response. There was not, however, a TPV filed with the response, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Multiline's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-163A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Consumer Telcom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Consumer Telcom of the complaint and Consumer Telcom responded on May 28, 2009. Consumer Telcom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Consumer Telcom's response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1640A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1640A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1640A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on February 2, 2010. Based on WilTel's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and WilTel's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T, and AT&T responded on April 8, 2010. We find that, based on WilTel's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-165A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on October 13, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLDI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-166A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on October 15, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-167A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on August 31, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-168A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on December 2, 2009. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred Billing submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-169A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on November 18, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-170A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 2, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-171A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Online Savings without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaints and Online Savings responded. Online Savings indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that Online Savings submitted with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-172A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-172A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-172A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to Preferred Billing without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaints and Preferred Billing responded. Preferred Billing indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that Preferred Billing submitted with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-173A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to LDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaints and LDS responded. LDS indicates that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that LDS submitted with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the residence,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-174A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-174A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-174A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CSP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CSP of the complaint and CSP responded on November 19, 2009. CSP states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CSP's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm that the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-175A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-175A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-175A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on November 12, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by BNLD, however, BNLD did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that BNLD's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-176A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-176A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-176A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to ATS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATS of the complaints and ATS responded. ATS states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by ATS with its responses and find that in each case, ATS's third-party verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-177A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-177A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-177A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on February 20, 2009. In its response, Sprint stated that Complainant's services were listed under the account for one of its resellers, and while Complainant's line was removed from the resellers database as requested, the calls were routed to Sprint's network by default. Pursuant to Sections
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-178A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on September 8, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDS submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-179A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on June 11, 2009. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-180A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on June 10, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NLDS submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1817A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. In its responses, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that UTI filed with its responses. In each case, UTI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and data
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-181A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-181A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-181A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 29, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDS submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1820A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Birch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Birch of the complaint and Birch responded on March 29, 2010. Birch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed by Birch and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm the telephone number(s) to be switched, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-182A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLD of the complaint and PLD responded on August 24, 2009. PLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that PLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-183A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-183A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-183A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to BNLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaints and BNLD responded. BNLD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that LDS submitted with its response. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-184A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-184A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-184A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on May 22, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by NLDS, however, NLDS did not submit an audible third party verification. Therefore, we find that NLDS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss NLDS's liability below. NLDS must
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1851A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1851A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1851A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on May 20, 2010. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1852A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1852A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1852A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to ANL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ANL of the complaint and ANL responded on May 17, 2010. ANL states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ANL submitted with its response. ANL's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1853A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1853A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1853A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on October 23, 2009. In its response, Cox states that, due to an office error, the Complainant's Primary Interexchange Carrier (PIC) was inadvertently changed from Sprint to Cox. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1854A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1854A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1854A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 26, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded April 27, 2010. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NSBI with its response and find that the verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1855A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1855A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1855A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served AT&T on May 20, 2010, and AT&T responded on June 15, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 6, 2010. Verizon states that on January 20, 2010, the subscriber requested
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1856A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1856A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1856A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 7, 2010. We find that the complaint involves new service and not a switch from one carrier to another. Thus, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1857A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1857A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1857A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LDD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDD of the complaint and LDD responded on December 3, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, LDD did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1858A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1858A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1858A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CDL without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CDL of the complaint and CDL responded on July 29, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, CDL did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-185A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-185A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-185A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 9, 2009. MCI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. MCI's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that MCI has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1864A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1864A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1864A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 1, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response, SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1865A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1865A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1865A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on June 10, 2010. NLDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response. NLDS's sales representative failed to drop off the call once the three way connection with the verifier had been established,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1866A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1866A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1866A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on July 27, 2010. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. NSBI's verifier, however, failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1867A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1867A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1867A1.txt
  • 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Legent Communications Corp d/b/a Long Distance America (Legent) without Complainant's authorization. Legent responded on June 9, 2010 saying it provides long distance wholesale services to Inmark, Inc. d/b/a Preferred Billing. Based on Legent's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on July 8, 2010. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1868A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1868A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1868A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NetOne without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NetOne of the complaint. NetOne has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of NetOne to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that NetOne's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1869A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1869A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1869A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on August 16, 2010. TeleUno states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). TeleUno, however, was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-186A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-186A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-186A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1870A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1870A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1870A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on August 19, 2010. Comcast admits that a Comcast representative erroneously entered Complainant's telephone number when placing an initial request for service for another new Comcast customer resulting in Complainant's telephone number being ported to that other customers account. We find that Comcast has failed to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1871A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1871A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1871A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on August 26, 2010. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). In its response, UTI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that UTI filed with its response. UTI's verifier,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1872A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1872A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1872A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI's parent company, Verizon (MCI/Verizon), responded on behalf of MCI on July 23, 2010. MCI/Verizon states that Complainant's number was included in an order received from a Verizon business customer, resulting in the inadvertent switch of Complainant's service. Based on this response, we find that MCI's actions resulted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1873A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1873A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1873A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 17, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint ACN responded April 8, 2010. ACN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by ACN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1874A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1874A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint MCI responded October 9, 2009. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1875A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1875A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1875A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 24, 2010. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and Verizon responded on July 23, 2010. We find that, based on Sprint's response
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-188A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 21, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on December 4, 2009. Verizon has fully absolved the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-189A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-189A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-189A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on August 1, 2009. CRC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with CRC's response, and we find that CRC's verifier marketed CRC services, in violation of our rules. We find that CRC has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-190A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-190A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-190A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 12, 2009. We find that, based on Verizon's response, Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-191A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Comcast to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on October 15, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Comcast, and the LEC responded on December 4, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-192A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-192A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-192A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on August 20, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed by LDS with its response. LDS's verifier, failed to confirm that the person on the call wanted to make the carrier change, in violation of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-193A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-193A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-193A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 19, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on March 20, 2009. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by LDCB with its response and find that LDCB has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-194A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on May 20, 2009. Quasar states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Quasar's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm if the person on the call was authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2076A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2076A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2076A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on October 8, 2010. Verizon states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). Verizon, however, was unable to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2077A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2077A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2077A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLD of the complaint and MLD responded on March 9, 2010. MLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). In its response, MLD stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPV that MLD filed with its response. MLD's verifier,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2078A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2078A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2078A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on August 12, 2010. Comcast admits that, due to a data entry error, Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently ported to Comcast Digital Voice service. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2079A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2079A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2079A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on July 30, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a discount calling card service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Advantage did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2081A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to United without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified United of the complaint and United responded on June 21, 2010. United that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that United submitted with its response. United's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2083A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified America of the complaint and America responded on June 4, 2010. America that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that America submitted with its response. America's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2084A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Pulse without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Pulse of the complaint. Pulse has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Pulses to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Pulse's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2085A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on September 18, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with CNBI's response and find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2086A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2086A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2086A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on June 21, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Main Street did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2087A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2087A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2087A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Broadview Network to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 17, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, and Verizon responded on April 7, 2010. Verizon has fully absolved the Complainant of all
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2288A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 23, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BullsEye without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BullsEye of the complaint and BullsEye responded on October 11, 2010. BullsEye states authorization was received and confirmed when a letter of agency (LOA) was signed and processed. We have reviewed the LOA that BullsEye submitted with its response. BullsEye's LOA does not contain a listing of the telephone numbers to be switched,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2392A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2392A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2392A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on May 25, 2010. Based on UAT's response, we served Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T. We find that, based on UAT's response, coupled with the LEC's response, the charges in question pertains to a billing problem relating to a calling card, and not a complaint
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2395A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 4, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on March 21, 2010. Comcast states in its response that it submitted a Local Service Request to switch the phone number. Comcast has not provided a recorded copy of a third party verification nor a signed Letter of Agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2396A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 13, 2010. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2397A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CRCI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRCI of the complaints and CRCI responded. In its responses, CRCI stated that authorization were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs CRCI filed with its responses, and we find that CRCI's verifiers marketed CRCI's services, in violation of our rules. We find that CRCI has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2398A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2398A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2398A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Clearworld without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clearworld of the complaints and Clearworld responded. In its responses, Clearworld stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the Third Party Verifications (TPV's) Clearworld filed with its responses. Clearworld's verifiers, however, failed to convey that long distance service includes international calls. We find that Clearworld
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2399A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2399A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2399A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on September 17, 2010. We find that, based on ATC's response, the charges in question pertains to a billing problem relating to a calling card, and not a complaint involving an unauthorized switch of telecommunications services. Thus, ATC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2401A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2401A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2401A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 18, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Lauren Tel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Lauren Tel of the complaint and Lauren Tel responded on June 7, 2010. We find that, based on its response, the complaint involves a voice message service and not a switch of presubscribed telecommunications service. Thus, Lauren Tel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2402A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2402A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on august 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint and Excel responded on September 18, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Excel's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest, and the LEC responded on September 9, 2010. We find that, based on Qwest's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2404A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CWC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CWC of the complaint and CWC responded on April 23, 2010. CWC states that authorization was granted per a third party verification (TPV) and was submitting the TPV with its response. CWC, however, submitted a non-functional audio tape, thus rendering it impossible to determine if the carrier change was authorized. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-301A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In each case, Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and data entry purposes.'' However, the purpose of a TPV recording is to verify a subscriber's intent to change their preferred carrier. As we emphasized in the Fourth Report
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-302A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Silv without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Inmark stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Silv filed with its responses. In each case, Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-320A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-320A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-320A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on May 21, 2009. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response, SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-321A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-321A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-321A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on October 15, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response, SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-322A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-322A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-322A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 18, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV NALD filed with its response, NALD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-323A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-323A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-323A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 30, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV SBA filed with its response, SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-324A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-324A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-324A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on September 18, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV CNBI filed with its response, CNBI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-325A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-325A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-325A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on October 23, 2009. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI filed with its response. ISI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-326A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-326A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-326A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on August 6, 2009. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV LDS filed with its response, LDS's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-327A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-327A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-327A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on July 27, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV BNLD filed with its response, BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-328A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-328A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-328A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on August 14, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV MLDI filed with its response, MLDI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-329A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on August 25, 2009. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV ISI filed with its response, ISI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-330A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-330A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-330A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on October 30, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA filed with its response. LDA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-331A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-331A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-331A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on January 15, 2010. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD filed with its response. BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-332A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-332A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-332A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on November 24, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV BNLD filed with its response, BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-333A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on December 2, 2009. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDCB filed with its response. LDCB's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-334A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Williams Communications (Williams) to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on September 28, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NLDS filed with its response. NLDS's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-335A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on August 7, 2009. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV NSBI filed with its response, NSBI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.'' However, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-336A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-336A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-336A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 3, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on December 2, 2009. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI filed with its response. ISI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-337A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-337A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-337A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on November 23, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD filed with its response. NALD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-338A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-338A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-338A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on October 12, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD filed with its response. BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-339A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-339A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-339A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 29, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD filed with its response. NALD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-508A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-508A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-508A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Pulse Telecom to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 21, 2009. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-509A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified CTI of the complaint and CTI responded on August 14, 2009. CTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-511A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-511A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-511A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Inmark without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inmark of the complaints and Inmark responded. In its responses, Inmark stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Inmark filed with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-512A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-512A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-512A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 10, 2009. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Verizon submitted with its response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-513A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-513A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-513A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Inmark without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Inmark of the complaints and Inmark responded. In its responses, Inmark stated that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs Inmark filed with its responses. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-514A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-514A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-514A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on September 9, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-515A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-515A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-515A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCC of the complaint and LCC responded on December 22, 2009. LCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LCC submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-516A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-516A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-516A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on December 18, 2009. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Spectrotel submitted with its response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-517A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-517A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-517A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 26, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on November 11, 2009. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-518A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-518A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-518A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-519A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-519A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-519A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-525A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-525A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-525A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NCT without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and NCT responded. In its responses, NCT stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NCT filed with its responses. The Commission's rules require that a TPV confirm that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-526A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-526A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-526A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to MLDI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaints and MLDI responded. In its responses, MLDI stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs MLDI filed with its responses. In each case, verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-527A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-527A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-527A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on October 14, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NLDS submitted with its response. NLDS's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-528A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-528A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-528A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Sprint Nextel to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond timely or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-529A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-529A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-529A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Knology to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 16, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Knology, and the LEC responded on January 21, 2010. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-532A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-532A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-532A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on October 12, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the residence,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-533A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-533A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-533A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 9, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-537A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-537A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-537A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified LDA of the complaint and LDS responded on July 30, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-538A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-538A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-538A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on November 24, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the [business
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-539A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on September 29, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-544A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-544A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-544A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on October 30, 2009. Online Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Online Savings submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a telephone number presumably
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-545A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-545A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-545A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on November 4, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-546A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-546A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-546A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on September 21, 2009. U.S. Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-547A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-547A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-547A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on November 9, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by TeleUno, however, TeleUno states that due to a workstation error the third party verification company was unable to provide a copy of the verification for this account. Therefore, we find that TeleUno's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-548A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-548A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-548A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to KoolTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified KoolTel of the complaint and KoolTel responded on October 22, 2009. We find that the complaint involves voiceover internet provider (VIP) service and not a switch of Complainant's presubscribed long distance service. Thus, KoolTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-549A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-549A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-549A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 13, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Norristown without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norristown of the complaint and Norristown responded on October 27, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Norristown did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-550A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-550A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-550A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Mainstreet without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Mainstreet of the complaint and Mainstreet responded on November 9, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Mainstreet did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-551A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-551A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-551A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to U.S. Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified U.S. Telecom of the complaint and U.S. Telecom responded on July 7, 2009. We find that, based on U.S. Telecom's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, U.S. Telecom did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-552A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-552A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-552A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on October 20, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV at issue
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-553A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-553A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-553A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 11, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint. Quasar has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days of receiving the complaint. The failure of Quasar to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Quasar's actions resulted in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-554A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint. Startec has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days of receiving the complaint. The failure of Startec to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Startec's actions resulted in a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-555A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-555A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-555A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Tele Circuit without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Tele Circuit of the complaint. Tele Circuit has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days of receiving the complaint. The failure of Tele Circuit to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Tele Circuit's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-559A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-559A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-559A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint, and Startec responded April 5, 2009. Startec stated that Complainant became a Startec customer on September 9, 2008, by using Startec's dial-around service and that on October 15, 2008, Complainant switched from Statec's dial-around service to Startec's direct dial service (i.e. presubscribed service). Startec claimed that Complainant does not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-560A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-560A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-560A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PTI of the complaint. PTI has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of PTI to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that PTI's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-561A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-561A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-561A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. We find that, based on Sprint's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), Sprint did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-562A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to CTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTI of the complaints and CTI responded. CTI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that LDS submitted with its responses. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-563A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-563A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-563A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 21, 2009. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-564A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-564A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-564A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on October 9, 2009. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-705A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-705A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-705A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLD of the complaint and MLD responded on December 17, 2009. MLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLD filed with its response. MLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-706A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-706A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-706A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on November 5, 2009. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Preferred's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-707A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-707A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-707A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-708A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-708A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-708A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 10, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-709A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on December 22, 2009. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDA submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier did not specifically elicit the ``telephone numbers to be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-710A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-710A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-710A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on December 17, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-711A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-711A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-711A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on November 7, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD filed with its response. NALD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-712A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-712A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-712A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on January 27, 2010. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI filed with its response. ISI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-713A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-713A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-713A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on December 11, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD filed with its response. NALD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account information.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-714A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-714A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-714A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on January 5, 2010. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-741A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-741A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-741A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to MLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLD of the complaint and MLD responded on December 1, 2009. MLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLD submitted with its response. MLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the conversation was ``to verify and confirm your account information.'' However,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-742A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-742A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-742A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Opex Communications to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on December 22, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NCT submitted with its response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-743A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-743A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-743A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to ACN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ACN of the complaint and ACN responded on December 16, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by ACN. ACN's response states that services were initiated over the telephone. ACN has failed to provide a third party verification (TPV) of this transaction, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that ACN's actions
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-744A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-744A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-744A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on January 14, 2010. We have reviewed the response submitted by CRC. CRC's response states that services were confirmed through a third party verification (TPV). CRC has failed to provide the asserted TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that CRC's actions resulted in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-944A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-944A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-944A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to HTSC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified HTSC of the complaint and HTSC responded on June 5, 2009. We find that, based on its response HTSC did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-945A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaints and Verizon responded. Based on Verizon's responses, we find that Verizon did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-946A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and a response was filed by MCI d/b/a Verizon Business Services on April 1, 2010. MCI has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by MCI in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-947A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-947A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-947A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served MCI on June 9, 2009, and MCI responded on July 8, 2009. In its response, MCI suggested the switch was made as a result of an order it received from PNG Telecommunications, Inc. (PNG) and from Complainant's local exchange carrier, Consolidated Communications (Consolidated), which may have contained incorrect information resulting in a switch
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-948A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-948A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-948A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Sprint on September 25, 2009, and Sprint responded on October 1, 2009. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on December 30, 2009. Verizon admits that the Complainant's long distance service was mistakenly
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-949A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-949A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on February 19, 2010. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-950A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-950A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-950A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Network without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Network of the complaint and Network responded on November 23, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by Network. Network, however, did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Network's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-951A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-951A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-951A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on December 16, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NALD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-952A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-952A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-952A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on January 15, 2010. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-953A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-953A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-953A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on January 12, 2010. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-958A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-958A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-958A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 24, 2009. We find that, based on its response, the complaint involved new service and not a change from an earlier carrier to AT&T. Thus, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-959A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-959A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-959A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CFLI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CFLI of the complaint and CFLI responded on October 26, 2009. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Call For Less Inc. did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-960A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-960A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-960A1.txt
  • Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Com Tech, LLC (Com Tech) to AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 4, 2009. AT&T stated that it did not submit an order to switch Complainant's long distance service to AT&T. It also stated that it billed for Complainant's calls routed over AT&T's network because Qwest, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), sent the traffic with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-961A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-961A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-961A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on January 28, 2010. In its response, Startec states that, although the switch was verified by a third party verification (TPV), there was a defect in the TPV process. We find that Startec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-962A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-962A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-962A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 28, 2009. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on April 8, 2010. We find that, based on Qwest's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-964A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-964A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-964A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on December 17, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-965A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-965A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-965A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on December 22, 2009. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that UTI submitted with its response. UTI's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and data entry purposes.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-967A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-967A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-967A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Global Tech to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on November 24, 2009. Based on MCI's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and MCI's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on April 2, 2010. We find that, based on MCI's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-968A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-968A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-968A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on December 15, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on March 25, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-975A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-975A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-975A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to CNBI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaints and CNBI responded. UTI states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make any misleading deserciption of the transaction. CNBI's verifier, however, stated in each case, ``We are recording this conversation for quality control and accurate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-976A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-976A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-976A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on October 26, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-977A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-977A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-977A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on January 27, 2010. We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. In each case, during the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but did not specifically elicit the ``telephone numbers to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-978A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-978A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-978A1.txt
  • of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to New Century without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified New Century of the complaints and New Century responded. New Century states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by New Century with its responses. The TPVs confirmed that Complainants wanted to switch state-to-state interLATA service. InterLATA service, in Complainants' state of Illinois
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-979A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-979A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-979A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on November 9, 2009. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that MLDI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-980A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-980A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-980A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on September 8, 2009. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Advantage submitted with its response. Advantage verifier's stated that ``the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``confirm a change to your
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-981A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-981A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-981A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) to UTI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaint and UTI responded on October 7, 2009. We have reviewed the response submitted by UTI. However, UTI did not submit a third party verification or letter of agency, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that UTI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-982A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 1, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to LSI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LSI of the complaint. LSI has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of LSI to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LSI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-983A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-983A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-983A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to SBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBA of the complaint and SBA responded on December 22, 2009. SBA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. We have reviewed the TPV submitted with SBA's response and find that SBA's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``I need a minute of your
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-984A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-984A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-984A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaints and Silv responded. In its responses, Silv stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that Silv filed with its responses. In each case, Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1278A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1278A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1278A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 14, 2008 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint Sprint responded January 23, 2008. Sprint has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Sprint in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1279A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1279A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1279A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint AT&T responded December 23, 2009. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1280A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1280A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1280A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on October 7, 2009. Qwest states that an email request was received from BellSouth Long Distance (BellSouth) showing a series of telephone numbers that included Complainant's telephone number to be switched to BellSouth's long distance services. We have reviewed the BellSouth notification Qwest submitted with its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1281A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1281A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1281A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on March 16, 2010. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that UAT submitted with its response. UAT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1282A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1282A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1282A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 10, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 8, 2009. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDC submitted with its response. LDC's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1283A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1283A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1283A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NCT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NCT of the complaint and NCT responded on December 22, 2009. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NCT submitted with its response. NCT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1284A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1284A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1284A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 21, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to PLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified PLD of the complaint and PLD responded on September 18, 2009. PLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with PLD's response, and we find that PLD's verifier failed to obtain separate authorization for each service being sold, as required by our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1285A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1285A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1285A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 12, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BRW without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BRW of the complaint and BRW responded on May 12, 2009. BRW, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the Third Party Verification or a signed Letter of Authorization, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that BRW's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1286A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1286A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1286A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 13, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on May 19, 2011. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1287A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1287A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1287A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1288A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1288A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1288A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 1, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Comcast without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Comcast of the complaint and Comcast responded on April 21, 2011. Comcast admits that a Comcast representative erroneously entered Complainant's telephone number when placing an initial request for service for another new Comcast customer. We find that Comcast has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1290A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1290A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1290A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on December 30, 2009. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Cordia submitted with its response. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1292A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1292A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1292A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 28, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to NSBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NSBI of the complaint and NSBI responded on March 30, 2011. NSBI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NSBI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1293A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1293A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1293A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 29, 2010. Verizon admits an error occurred which led to the unauthorized switch. We find that Verizon has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that Verizon's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1294A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1294A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1294A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 25, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint. Frontier has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of Frontier to respond or provide proof of the verification within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Frontier's actions resulted in a violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1295A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1295A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1295A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Zoom without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Zoom of the complaints and Zoom responded. Zoom states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs submitted by Zoom with its responses and find that in each case, Zoom's third-party verifier failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1296A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1296A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1296A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on March 30, 2011. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Verizon with its response and find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1297A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1297A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1297A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served each Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled with information received from each Complainant's LEC, AT&T did not violate our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1298A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1298A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1298A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 14, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on May 20, 2011. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by AT&T with its response and find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1299A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1299A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1299A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on November 18, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on February 17, 2011. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1300A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1300A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1300A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 6, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on May 12, 2009. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on June 30, 2009. We find that, based on Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1301A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1301A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1301A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on December 7, 2009. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest Communications, Inc. (Qwest), and the LEC responded on April 8, 2009. We find that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1302A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaints and Sprint responded. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served each Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), and the LEC responded. We find that, based on Sprint's response coupled with information received from each Complainant's LEC, Sprint did not violate our
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1303A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1303A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1303A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaints and Cordia responded. Cordia states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs and find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Therefore, we find that Cordia's actions did not result in unauthorized
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1304A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on December 8, 2010. FSN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by FSN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1305A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on December 14, 2010. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that America Net submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1306A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1306A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1306A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on December 6, 2010. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1307A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1307A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1307A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleUno without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified TeleUno of the complaint and TeleUno responded on April 23, 2010. TeleUno states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1308A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1308A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1308A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on December 21, 2010. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1334A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1334A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1334A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 23, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MLDI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified MLDI of the complaint and MLDI responded on December 29, 2010. MLDI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1335A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on August 27, 2010. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Cordia's response and find that the verifier failed to confirm whether the person on the call was authorized to make the carrier
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-137A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-137A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-137A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on August 31, 2010. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDCB submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1387A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from VTX Telecom to Airnex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Airnex of the complaint. Airnex has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Airnex to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Airnex's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1388A1.txt
  • charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Startec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Startec of the complaint and Startec responded on July 19, 2010. Startec states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Startec's response, and we find that Startec's verifier marketed Startec's services, in violation of our rules. We find that Startec has failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1389A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on October 1, 2010. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDCB submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-138A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-138A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-138A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 29, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on January 27, 2010. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NLDS submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1390A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1390A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1390A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDS of the complaint and LDS responded on July 29, 2010. LDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDS submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1391A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1391A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1391A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 18, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on March 11, 2010. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that America Net submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1394A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1394A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1394A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 5, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint (because WorldCom and MCI previously had merged), and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on May 14, 2010. Verizon states that United Telecom sent Verizon an order to add Complainant's telephone number to its reseller account. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United Telecom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1395A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1395A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1395A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred Billing without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred Billing of the complaint and Preferred Billing responded on July 1, 2010. Preferred Billing states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred Billing submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a telephone number presumably
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1396A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1396A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1396A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Billing Services of America of the complaints and Billing Services of America responded. In its responses, Billing Services of America stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that Billing Services of America filed with its responses. In each case, during the course of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-139A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-139A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-139A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 10, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 27, 2010. NLDS states that authorization was granted per a third party verification (TPV) and was submitting the TPV with its response. NLDS, however, submitted a non-functional audio tape, thus rendering it impossible to determine if the carrier change was authorized. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1404A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1404A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1404A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 13, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 25, 2010. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that AT&T submitted with its response. Because InterLATA service in Complainant's state of Illinois encompasses international calls. There is evidence on the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1405A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1405A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1405A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on July 7, 2010. ISI states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1407A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 17, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on March 15, 2011. ISI states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that ISI submitted with its response. We find that ISI's verifier, however, failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, as required by our rules. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1408A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1408A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1408A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 12, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 18, 2011. BNLD states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. We find that BNLD's verifier failed to confirm authorization regarding a switch of intraLATA service, as required by our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1409A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1409A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1409A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 28, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on May 19, 2011. BNLD states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD submitted with its response. We find that BNLD's verifier, however, failed to confirm a switch of intraLATA service, as required by our rules. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-140A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-140A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-140A1.txt
  • carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cox Long Distance to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Sprint on August 20, 2010, and Sprint responded on September 10, 2010. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Cox responded on November 8, 2010. Cox states that on June 14, 2010, the subscriber requested
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1410A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1410A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1410A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NALD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaints and NALD responded. NALD states that authorizations were received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs that NALD submitted with its responses. During the course of each TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1411A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1411A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1411A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1412A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 25, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and MCI responded on February 18, 2010. We find that, based on MCI's response coupled with information received from Complainant's local exchange carrier, MCI did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-141A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-141A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-141A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Charter without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Charter of the complaint and Charter responded on December 22, 2010. Charter states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). Charter, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Charter's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1422A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1422A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1422A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 2, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on August 6, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by BNLD with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-142A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-142A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-142A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CWCC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified CWCC of the complaint and CWCC responded on October 8, 2010. CWCC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-143A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Convergia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Convergia of the complaint and Convergia responded on November 3, 2010. Convergia states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). Convergia, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Convergia's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-144A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-144A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-144A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Time Warner to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on October 8, 2010. Verizon admits that MCI added the Complainant's telephone number to a large business account which resulted in the switch to MCI. We find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-145A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-145A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-145A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 2, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of Birch to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-146A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-146A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-146A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Century Tel to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on September 13, 2010. Silv states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). Silv, however, did not provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Silv's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-148A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-148A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-148A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on June 18, 2009. Based on Qwest's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, and Verizon responded on November 24, 2010. We find that, based on Qwest's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-149A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-149A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-149A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 25, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to IDT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified IDT of the complaint and IDT responded on November 3, 2009. Based on IDT's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and IDT's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T, and AT&T responded on November 23, 2010. We find that, based on IDT's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-150A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 29, 2010. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, and Verizon responded on November 24, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-151A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 19, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's response, the complaint pertains to a service problem relating to VoIP service, which currently is not subject to the Commission's slamming rules. Thus, AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-152A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-152A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-152A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 30, 2010. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Verizon, and Verizon responded on November 24, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's response coupled
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-153A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Talk for Less without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Talk for Less of the complaint and Talk for Less responded on November 18, 2010. We find that, based on Talk for Less's response, the charges in question pertains to a toll free number for dial around, and not a complaint involving an unauthorized switch of telecommunications services. Thus, Talk for Less did
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-154A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-154A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-154A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 19, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LCR without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LCR of the complaint and LCR responded on April 21, 2010. Based on LCR's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and LCR's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest Communications, Inc., and the LEC responded on September 9, 2010. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-155A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-155A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-155A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 16, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OSBA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OSBA of the complaint and OSBA responded on October 6, 2010. We find that, based on its response, the complaint does not involve a switch of presubscribed telecommunications service provider. Thus, OSBA did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-160A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-160A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-160A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 27, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on August 18, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with NLDS's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm all of the telephone numbers to be switched, as required
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-161A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-161A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-161A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on July 13, 2010. Based on Qwest's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Citizens Communications Company c/o CTE Services, Inc., Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Frontier Communications Solutions (Frontier) responded on September 10, 2010. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-162A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on January 8, 2010. Based on Qwest's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Qwest's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T Illinois (AT&T), and the LEC responded on September 29, 2010. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-163A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-163A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-163A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to CTS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CTS of the complaint. CTS has failed to respond to the complaint. The failure of CTS to respond or provide proof of verification within 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that CTS's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-164A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-164A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-164A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 3, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Qwest Communicationss, Inc. (Qwest) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Qwest of the complaint and Qwest responded on May 18, 2010. Qwest states that service was established by a reseller initiated order received from LDC. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC Telecommunications, Inc. c/o LDC, Inc. of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-165A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-165A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-165A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to TeleDias without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified TeleDias of the complaint and TeleDias responded on June 25, 2010. TeleDias states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1666A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1666A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1666A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received the subject complaint on April 14, 2009, alleging that the complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without the complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Sprint of the complaint. The Division Order concluded that Sprint had failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by the Commission's rules. The Division found, therefore, that because Sprint had failed to timely respond to the complaint, it had violated the Commission's carrier change rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1667A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1667A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1667A1.txt
  • charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received the subject complaint on January 2, 2009, alleging that the complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to BNLD without the complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified BNLD of the complaint. The Division Order concluded that BNLD had failed to respond within 30 days of receipt of the complaint, as required by our rules. Because BNLD failed to timely respond to the complaint, the Division found that BNLD violated the Commission's carrier change rules. By its subject Petition,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1668A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1668A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1668A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received the subject complaint on March 18, 2010, alleging that the complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CBS without the complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified CBS of the complaint. In response, CBS stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV) but that, due to a recording failure, CBS was unable to provide the TPV. The Division Order found that, in light of its failure to have provided the TPV, CBS had failed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1669A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1669A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1669A1.txt
  • 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier must refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. The Commission received the subject complaint on November 22, 2010, alleging that the complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Charter without the complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified Charter of the complaint. In its response, Charter represented that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV), but it did not provide a copy of the TPV recording. Accordingly, the Division granted the complaint due to Charter's failure to provide such a recording. By its subject Petition, Charter seeks reconsideration
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-166A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to America without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaints and America responded. In its responses, America stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs America filed with its responses. During the course of each TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-167A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-167A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-167A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to NLDS without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaints and NLDS responded. In its responses, NLDS stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs NLDS filed with its responses. The Commission's rules state that the verifier may not make misleading description of the transaction. We have reviewed the TPVs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-168A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-168A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-168A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on April 23, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD filed with its response. BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-169A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-169A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-169A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Qwest to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on August 7, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that NLDS filed with its response. NLDS's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-170A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-170A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-170A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norristown of the complaints and Norristown responded. We find that the complaints involve dial-around long distance services and not a switch of presubscribed long distance services. Thus, Norristown did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-171A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 12, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 15, 2010. Silv that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. Silv's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was for ``quality control and accurate data entry
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-173A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-173A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-173A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on February 19, 2010. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, Hawaiian Telecom, and Hawaiian Telecom responded on April 9, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1814A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1814A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1814A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to HTSC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified HTSC of the complaint and HTSC responded on December 15, 2010. HTSC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1815A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification within the required 30 days is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1816A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1816A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1816A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ISI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ISI of the complaint and ISI responded on January 4, 2011. ISI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by ISI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1817A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1817A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1817A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NALD of the complaint and NALD responded on August 10, 2009. NALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NALD with its response and find that NALD has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1819A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 4, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on June 10, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1820A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 7, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CNBI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CNBI of the complaint and CNBI responded on August 11, 2009. CNBI states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by CNBI with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1821A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OIP without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OIP of the complaint and OIP responded on January 7, 2011. OIP states that due to a data entry error, Complainant's telephone number was switched. Therefore, we find that OIP's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss OIP's liability below. OIP must remove all charges incurred
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1849A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1849A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1849A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDCB without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaints and LDCB responded. In its responses, LDCB stated that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPVs). We have reviewed the TPVs LDCB filed with its responses. During the course of each TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2064A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2064A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2064A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 18, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Access Point to Advantage Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage Telecom of the complaint and Advantage Telecom responded on September 24, 2009. Advantage Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Advantage Telecom filed with its response. Advantage Telecom's verifier, however, stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was ``to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2065A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 9, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint because WorldCom no longer existed, MCI responded on May 28, 2009. Based on MCI's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded September 17, 2009. Based on Verizon's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2066A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2066A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2066A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 15, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to NLDS without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified NLDS of the complaint and NLDS responded on July 16, 2009. NLDS states that authorization was received through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by NLDS with its response. Section 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that, ``no
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2067A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2067A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2067A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 20, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T, Inc. to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified LDC of the complaint and LDC responded on December 8, 2009. LDC states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2068A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 13, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint Verizon responded August 18, 2009. Verizon has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Verizon in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2081A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2081A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2081A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 30, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 11, 2009. Advantage states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Advantage submitted with its response. Advantage's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``confirm a change to your service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2082A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2082A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2082A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 19, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from TDS Telecom to Quasar without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Quasar of the complaint and Quasar responded on January 15, 2010. NCT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Quasar submitted with its response. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2083A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2083A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2083A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 17, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Spectrotel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Spectrotel of the complaint and Spectrotel responded on June 17, 2009. Spectrotel states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Spectrotel submitted with its response. The Commission's rules require that if the subscriber has additional questions for the carrier's sales representative during the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2084A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2084A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2084A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served Verizon Long Distance (VZLD) on December 17, 2009, and VZLD responded on January 14, 2010. Based on VZLD's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), of the complaint and Verizon responded on April 7, 2010. Verizon states that the switch to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2085A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2085A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-2085A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2009 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RRLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RRLD of the complaint RRLD responded September 18, 2009. RRLD has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by RRLD in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-374A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-374A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-374A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to FSN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified FSN of the complaint and FSN responded on May 10, 2010. FSN has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by FSN in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-375A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-375A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-375A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint AT&T responded November 19, 2010. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-376A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-376A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-376A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 5, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to DLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified DLD of the complaint and DLD responded on November 23, 2010. DLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-377A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to Reliant without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Reliant of the complaint and Reliant responded on January 3, 2010. Reliant states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Reliant submitted with its response. Reliant's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was ``to confirm a change to your service,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-378A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-378A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-378A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ALD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified ALD of the complaint and ALD responded on November 11, 2010. ALD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-379A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-379A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-379A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served AT&T on January 11, 2010, and AT&T responded on February 11, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LaJicarita, Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), of the complaint and LaJicarita responded on April 21, 2010. LaJicarita states that it received the necessary paperwork from
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-380A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-380A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-380A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and Verizon, responded on behalf of MCI on January 11, 2011. Verizon states that there was an inadvertent switch of Complainant's service to MCI. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss MCI's liability below. MCI must remove
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-381A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-381A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-381A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint and, Verizon, responded on behalf of MCI on January 11, 2011. Verizon states that there was an inadvertent switch of Complainant's service to MCI. Therefore, we find that MCI's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss MCI's liability below. MCI must remove
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-383A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-383A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-383A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 11, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 29, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on November 24, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-384A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-384A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-384A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon of the complaint and Verizon responded on November 18, 2010. Verizon states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Verizon with its response and find that Verizon has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-385A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to WilTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on September 3, 2010. Based on WilTel's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and WilTel's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on December 30, 2010. We find that, based on WilTel's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-386A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-386A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-386A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on August 17, 2010. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Cox Communications, Inc., and the LEC responded on November 19, 2010. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-387A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 9, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on December 17, 2010. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV submitted by Cordia with its response and find that Cordia has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid authorized carrier change by Complainant.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-388A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-388A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-388A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 23, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on April 2, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Alaska Power & Telephone (APT), and the LEC responded on December 29, 2010. We find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-389A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-389A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-389A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to ATC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified ATC of the complaint and ATC responded on September 2, 2010. Based on ATC's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and ATC's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Qwest Communications, Inc.(Qwest), and the LEC responded on November 5, 2010. We find that, based
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-497A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-497A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-497A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Frontier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaint. Frontier has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of Frontier to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Frontier's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-732A2.txt
  • 269.53 1.348 1.467 1.45 8,920.6710,408.7911,790.44 3.053 2.373 2.671 270.39 265.398 266.293 34.135 36.102 37.968 4.623 5.603 5.502 1,361.831,420.911,609.49 1.062 1.056 1.04 0.563 0.551 0.548 0.625 0.639 0.637 3.264 3.496 3.529 4.469 4.745 4.991 0.779 0.776 0.776 47.794 49.912 52.729 2.041 2.065 2.096 1.482 1.466 1.479 1.428 1.412 1.416 1.376 1.362 1.625 1.958 1.997 2.146 4.06 4.241 4.422 9.194 9.278 9.262 1.719 1.708 1.683 25.387 24.447 25.723 17.005 16.987 16.567 1.346 1.504 1.676 452.951 487.456 518.809 16.598 16.767 17.215 0.178 0.195 0.206 257.871 260.458 264.263 0.898 0.906 0.954 6.438 4.802 5.018 0.602 0.615 0.634 1.04 1.083 1.16 1.583 1.573 1.655 0.997 0.973 0.96 667.89 758.255 819.153 2.809 3.153 3.549 4.772 4.192 4.492 0.653 0.656 0.669 1 1 1 15.429 16.131 16.832 525.414
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-757A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-757A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-757A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 28, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint AT&T responded July 30, 2010. AT&T has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by AT&T in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-758A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 1, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on August 10, 2010. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Preferred's response and find that the third party verifier failed to confirm all the telephone numbers to be switched, as required by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-759A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-759A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-759A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on August 23, 2010. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Preferred submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-760A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-760A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-760A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 8, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to CRC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified CRC of the complaint and CRC responded on March 9, 2011. CRC states that authorization was obtained by third party verification (TPV). CRC, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the TPV, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that CRC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-761A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-761A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-761A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on August 21, 2010. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that Clear Rate's verifier marketed Clear Rate's services, in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-762A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-762A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-762A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed Clear Rate without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Clear Rate of the complaint and Clear Rate responded on September 21, 2010. Clear Rate states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with Clear Rate's response, and we find that Clear Rate's verifier marketed Clear Rate's services, in violation of our rules.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-763A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-763A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-763A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on September 9, 2010. In its response Sprint states that Complainant's account belonged to one of its resellers, Working Assets Long Distance, now Credo Long Distance (Credo). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Credo of the complaint and Credo responded October
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-764A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-764A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-764A1.txt
  • to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon Long Distance to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on July 1, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Verizon, Complainant's local exchange carrier, of the complaint and Verizon responded on August 6, 2010. Verizon states that although the customer contacted Verizon and requested Verizon
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-765A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-765A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-765A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Cavalier to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on August 13, 2010. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on October 1, 2010. In its response, Verizon admits that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-766A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-766A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-766A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on February 2, 2011. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-767A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-767A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-767A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 24, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on December 21, 2010. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a telephone number presumably associated with the business, but
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-768A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-768A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-768A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 2, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November 18, 2010. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Silv submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-769A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-769A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-769A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 22, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America of the complaint and America responded on January 25, 2011. America states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that America submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-770A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-770A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-770A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified America of the complaint and America responded on October 27, 2010. America states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-771A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-771A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-771A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 14, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to America Net without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified America Net of the complaint and America Net responded on December 21, 2010. America Net states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that America Net submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to United Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United Telecom of the complaint and United Telecom responded on February 1, 2011. United Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that United Telecom submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited telephone numbers presumably associated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-772A2.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 28, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to United Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified United Telecom of the complaint and United Telecom responded on February 1, 2011. United Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through independent third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that United Telecom submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited telephone numbers presumably associated
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-773A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-773A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-773A1.txt
  • the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 13, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to WilTel Communications, LLC (WilTel) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WilTel of the complaint and WilTel responded on October 15, 2010. WilTel states, in its response, that the account in question belonged to a reseller of their service; Silv Communications Inc. (Silv). Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on November
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-774A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-774A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-774A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 10, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Surftone without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Surftone of the complaint. Surftone has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of Surftone to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Surftone's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-775A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-775A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-775A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 27, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI, Inc. (MCI) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on July 2, 2010. Based on Verizon's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 or our rules, we notified CenturyLink of the complaint. CenturyLink has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of CenturyLink to respond or
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-776A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-776A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-776A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 6, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to RCN without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified RCN of the complaint and RCN responded on February 22, 2011. RCN, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the Third Party Verification or a signed Letter of Authorization, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that RCN's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-777A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-777A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-777A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 6, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Long Distance Services without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Long Distance Services of the complaint and Long Distance Services responded on August 6, 2010. Long Distance Services states that Complainant's telephone number was inadvertently switched. Therefore, we find that Long Distance Services's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we discuss Long Distance Services's liability below. Pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-778A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-778A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-778A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 5, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cavalier without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cavalier of the complaint and Cavalier responded on April 6, 2009. Cavalier, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the Third Party Verification or a signed Letter of Authorization, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that Cavalier's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-779A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-779A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-779A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on January 24, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on March 4, 2011. In its response, AT&T stated that an order for new service was placed on October 23, 2010, with a completion date of November 2, 2010. On October 28, 2010, Complainant called to cancel the order for new service. AT&T admits that this
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-780A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-780A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-780A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 3, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Preferred without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Preferred of the complaint and Preferred responded on July 28, 2010. Preferred states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-781A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-781A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-781A1.txt
  • subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 28, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint and Sprint responded on November 19, 2009. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Cox and Cox responded on December 6, 2010. Cox admits that, based on a CARE
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-782A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-782A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-782A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 30, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDA without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified LDA of the complaint and LDA responded on January 27, 2011. LDA states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' In the TPV
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-783A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-783A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-783A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 15, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Airnex without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Airnex of the complaint. Airnex has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of Airnex to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Airnex's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-784A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-784A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-784A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Online Savings without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Online Savings of the complaint and Online Savings responded on October 13, 2010. Online Savings states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-785A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-785A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-785A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Cordia without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cordia of the complaint and Cordia responded on May 6, 2010. Cordia states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification. Cordia's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Cordia has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-787A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-787A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-787A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in violations of the Commission's carrier change rules and we discuss LDC's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-788A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-788A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-788A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to Frontier without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Frontier of the complaints. Frontier has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of Frontier to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that Frontier's actions resulted in violations of our carrier change rules and we discuss Frontier's liability
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-789A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-789A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-789A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 4, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Advantage without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Advantage of the complaint and Advantage responded on December 3, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a calling card service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Advantage did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-790A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-790A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-790A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Sprint without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Sprint of the complaint, and Sprint responded on January 13, 2011. Based on Sprint's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Sprint's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on February 17, 2011. We find that, based on Sprint's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-791A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-791A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-791A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 31, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on September 29, 2010. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on November 24, 2010. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-792A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 7, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on January 14, 2011. Based on AT&T's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on February 17, 2011. We find that, based on AT&T's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-793A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-793A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-793A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Verizon without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI, Inc. (MCI) of the complaint (because WorldCom and MCI previously had merged), and Verizon Business responded on behalf of MCI on October 8, 2010. Verizon Business states that Verizon sent Verizon Business an order to add Complainant's telephone number to its reseller account. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-794A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-794A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-794A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on July 29, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI August 31, 2010. Based on Verizon's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Verizon's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on November 22, 2010. We find that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-795A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-795A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-795A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI on November 12, 2010. Based on Verizon's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Verizon's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, Inc (AT&T), and the LEC responded on February 3, 2011.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-796A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-796A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-796A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 11, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to MCI without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified MCI of the complaint, and Verizon responded on behalf of MCI June 17, 2010. Based on Verizon's response and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we served the complaint and Verizon's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Verizon, and the LEC responded on July 23, 2010. We find that,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-797A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-797A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-797A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 8, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LaurenTel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LaurenTel of the complaint and LaurenTel responded on March 2, 2011. The complaint involves a voice message service and not a switch of presubscribed telecommunications service. We find that LaurenTel did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-798A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-798A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-798A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 17, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Norristown without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Norristown of the complaint and Norristown responded on December 15, 2010. We find that the complaint involves a dial-around long distance service and not a switch of presubscribed long distance service. Thus, Norristown did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1018A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1018A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1018A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 4, 2011 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Charter without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Charter of the complaint and Charter responded on May 12, 2011. Charter states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that Charter submitted with its response. Charter's verifier failed to confirm the identity of the subscriber as required by our rules. We find that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1019A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1019A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1019A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 18, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from AT&T to LDCB without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDCB of the complaint and LDCB responded on November 28, 2011. LDCB states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that LDCB submitted with its response. During the course of the TPV, the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers ``with your new long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1020A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1020A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1020A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 13, 2010 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Excel without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Excel of the complaint Excel responded September 8, 2010. Excel has fully absolved the Complainant of all charges assessed by Excel in a manner consistent with the Commission's liability rules. Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the complaint referenced herein has been resolved. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1021A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1021A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1021A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on August 11, 2011 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Silv without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Silv of the complaint and Silv responded on August 31, 2011. Silv states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. Silv's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that Silv has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1022A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1022A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1022A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 23, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T, Inc. without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T, Inc. of the complaint and AT&T, Inc. responded on January 31, 2011. Based on AT&T Inc's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T, Inc.'s response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), AT&T, and the LEC responded on June 7, 2011. In its
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1023A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1023A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1023A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on May 25, 2011 alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to UAT without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UAT of the complaint and UAT responded on June 8, 2011. UAT states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. UAT's verifier, however, failed to convey that long distance service encompasses all international calls, in violation of our rules. We find that UAT has failed to produce clear and convincing
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1024A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on June 9, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on July 19, 2011. AT&T, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the Third Party Verification or a signed Letter of Authorization, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1025A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaints and AT&T responded. We find that, based on AT&T's responses, coupled with information received from Complainants' local exchange carriers (LECs), AT&T did not violate our carrier change rules. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1026A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1026A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1026A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on September 29, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on November 3, 2011. AT&T, however, failed to provide a recorded copy of the Third Party Verification or a signed Letter of Authorization, as required by our rules. Therefore, we find that AT&T's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1027A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1027A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1027A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 8, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint and AT&T responded on June 7, 2011. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier (LEC), Charter, and the LEC responded on November 15, 2011. In its response, Charter admits that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1042A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1042A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1042A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 21, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint. OneLink has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of OneLink to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1043A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1043A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1043A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on November 11, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneLink without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneLink of the complaint. OneLink has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of OneLink to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that OneLink's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-397A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-397A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-397A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-449A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-449A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-449A1.txt
  • 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed to LDC without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaints. LDC has failed to respond to the complaints. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainants' telecommunications service provider and we discuss
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-801A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-801A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-801A1.txt
  • consumer confusion concerning the true purpose of the solicitation call.'' The Commission stated that ``such practices are misleading and unreasonable, and warrant specific treatment in our rules.'' The Commission received the two Complainants' complaints on, respectively, April 21, 2009, and May 26, 2009, alleging that their telecommunications service providers had been changed to CTI without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules, the Division notified CTI of the complaints. In its responses, CTI stated that the consumers' authorizations were received and confirmed through third-party verification (TPVs). The Division reviewed the TPVs filed with CTI's responses. In each TPV, the verifier asked whether the person on the call ``has the authority to make changes to their long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-819A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-819A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-819A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on December 20, 2010, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to United Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified United Telecom of the complaint and United Telecom responded on January 26, 2011. United Telecom admits that, due to a clerical error, Complainant's telephone number was mistakenly provisioned under another company's name. We find that United Telecom has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-820A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-820A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-820A1.txt
  • the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified UTI of the complaints and UTI responded. UTI states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications (TPV) in each case. The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.'' We have reviewed the TPVs
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-821A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-821A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-821A1.txt
  • by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on February 7, 2011, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Rodeo Telecom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified Rodeo Telecom of the complaint and Rodeo Telecom responded on April 4, 2011. Rodeo Telecom states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). The Commission's rules require that the verification elicit, amongst other things, confirmation that the person on the call is ``authorized to make the carrier change.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-982A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-982A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-982A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 23, 2012, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to LDC without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified LDC of the complaint. LDC has failed to respond to the complaint within 30 days. The failure of LDC to respond or provide proof of the verification is presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation. Therefore, we find that LDC's actions resulted in a violation of our carrier change rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222377A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222377A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-222377A1.txt
  • carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. We received Complainant's complaint on October 1, 2001 alleging that Complainant's local service provider had been changed from Verizon to Cox without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified Cox of the complaint and Cox responded on December 3, 2001. Cox states that due to an unplanned system equipment failure the third party verifier was unable to complete the verification process. We find that Cox has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226567A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226567A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-226567A1.txt
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 11, 2002 alleging that Complainant's long distance service had been changed from Verizon to eLec without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified eLec of the complaint and eLec responded on May 31, 2002. eLec states that the Complainant's account was switched in error. We find that eLec has failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that Complainant authorized a carrier change. Therefore, we find that eLec's actions resulted in an unauthorized change in Complainant's long
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227452A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227452A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-227452A2.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this Order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to WorldCom without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified WorldCom of the complaint and WorldCom responded. WorldCom states that someone identified as the Complainant authorized the change of service in each of the above referenced complaints. WorldCom's third party verifier, however, failed to obtain separate authorizations for each service sold to the Complainants as required by our rules. We find that WorldCom
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-238421A1.txt
  • a formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.721 of Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 1.721. Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of Complainant's informal complaint so long as the formal complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is mailed or delivered electronically to Complainant. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.719. (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-2752 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-2752 K r t u � < L s u � � � � - - � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � @& � � 4 ixZ � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-247351A2.txt
  • Harry Wingo, (202) 418-1783, Harry.Wingo@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Vickie Robinson, (202) 418-2732, Vickie.Robinson@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on April 27, 2004: Chairman Powell; Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 04-175 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities - Outlines
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256427A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256427A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-256427A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' telecommunications service providers had been changed from their authorized carriers to SBCLD without Complainants' authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified SBCLD of the complaints and SBCLD responded. SBCLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verifications. We find that SBCLD has produced clear and convincing evidence of valid authorized carrier changes by Complainants. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296469A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296469A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296469A1.txt
  • paid by the subscriber to AT&T at the rate(s) the subscriber should have been paying to AT&T for the time period in question. 6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications ACT of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and l.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed against Cox Arizona Telecom, LLC IS GRANTED. 7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 64.1170(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 64.1170(d), Complainant is entitled to absolution for the charges incurred during the first thirty days after the unauthorized change occurred and neither AT&T nor Cox may pursue any collection against Complainant for those
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302478A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302478A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302478A1.txt
  • violation of the Commission's rules. We conclude that AT&T Illinois' actions did not violate our carrier change rules and we deny Complainant's complaint. Paragraph 4 reads as follows: We received Complainant's complaint on October 8, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Unitel Communications Group, Inc. to AT&T, Inc. (AT&T) without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint. AT&T responded on November 16, 2009. Based on AT&T's response, and pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the rules, we served the complaint and AT&T's response on Complainant's local exchange carrier, AT&T Illinois. AT&T Illinois responded on April 10, 2010. Based on the response of AT&T, coupled with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-135A1.txt
  • later. The collections of information contained in sections 64.1150, 64.1160, and 64.1170 are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The procedures and relief described in these sections shall only be available to complainants who allege that the unauthorized carrier change occurred on or after the effective date of this section. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sections 1.719, 64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1140, and 64.1160 ARE ENACTED in accordance with our discussion above, and that these rules are effective 30 days from publication of a summary of the text in the Federal Register or on the date when the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding become effective, whichever is
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-182A1.txt
  • Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, � 8 (1988). See 47 C.F.R. � 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. � 1.719. See id. � 1.729(a). 47 U.S.C. � 258. Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a postpaid
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-46A1.txt
  • a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or in interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy...." See section 3 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. � 153. Federal Communications Commission, Biennial Review 2000, Staff Report, CC Docket 00-175, September 19, 2000 (September Biennial Review Staff Report) at � 162. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 1.719 (informal complaints filed pursuant to Section 258 of the Act -- unauthorized change to a subscriber's preferred carrier). For example, we propose to apply these new rules to informal complaints from consumers concerning a video programming distributor's purported failure to fulfill the mandates set forth in our closed captioning rules. 47 C.F.R. Sec. 79.1. However, those rules do not contain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-42A1.txt
  • 3; BellSouth Comments at 2; Qwest Comments at 2. BellSouth Comments at 2-3. Id. Qwest Comments at 2-3. Id. AT&T Comments at 3. Id. at 6-8. Id. WorldCom Petition at 9. Id. Third Report and Order at � 87. Id. Id. Second Report and Order at �� 112-138. Id. at � 113. Id. at � 116. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 1.719. See First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158, note 72. Id. at �� 22-43. 47 C.F.R. � 1.719(c). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1150(d). 47 C.F.R. � 64.1150(c). Third Report and Order at � 40. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at � 41. Id. See also Second Report and Order at � 74. Third Report and Order at � 41. We
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-67A1.txt
  • rules in keeping with the Congressional intent of the Act that the Commission's rules should strive to make slamming victims whole. Slamming Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1531. See also id. at 1521 (consumers deserve some compensation for the inconvenience and confusion they experience from being slammed). Consumer slamming complaints are adjudicated as informal complaints under section 1.719 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. � 1.719. See 47 U.S.C. � 258; 47 C.F.R. � 64.1120. Response at 8-9, 50. Response at 7-8. . . Slamming Reconsideration Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 8175. Response at 8. . Private Coast Station KXP96 and Maritime Mobile Station WAD7029 Joe Harlan Kokiak, AK, Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7957 (Field Op. Bur., 1993).
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-105A1.txt
  • Harry Wingo, (202) 418-1783, Harry.Wingo@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Vickie Robinson, (202) 418-2732, Vickie.Robinson@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on April 27, 2004: Chairman Powell; Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin and Adelstein. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 04-175 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities - Outlines
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-115A1.txt
  • Engineering & Technology: Bruce Romano, 202-418-2124, bruce.romano@fcc.gov Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Peter Corea, 202-418-7931, peter.corea@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Carrie-Lee Early, 202-418-2776, carrie.early@fcc.gov Action by the Commission on August 3, 2006. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 06-152 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities - Outlines
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-201A1.txt
  • Telecommunications Bureau: Jane Jackson, 202-418-1545, jane.jackson@fcc.gov Wireline Competition Bureau: Kirk Burgee, 202-418-1599, kirk.burgee@fcc.gov Action taken on September 2, 2008: By Chairman Martin, and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 08-177 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities - Outlines
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-204A1.txt
  • this proceeding, please contact: Action by the Commission December 29, 2010: By Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Robert McDowell, Mignon L. Clyburn, and Meredith A. Baker. - FCC - ATTACHMENT RULE PARTS CONTAINING REGULATIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS BUREAU (CGB) CG Docket No. 10-266 Part 1 - Practice and Procedure - Sections 1.716 through 1.719 set forth rules for the filing of informal complaints. Part 6 - Access to Telecommunications Service, Telecommunications Equipment and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities - Outlines the obligations of manufacturers and service providers concerning accessibility to telecommunications service and equipment. Part 7 - Access to Voicemail and Interactive Menu Services and Equipment by People with Disabilities - Outlines
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-151A1.txt
  • a standing requirement); IT and Telecom RERCs Comments at 40 (agreeing that there is no basis in law for imposing a standing requirement); Words+ and Compusult Comments at 35 (opposing any standing requirement). 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(1)-(4). Accessibility NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 3183, � 136. 47 C.F.R. �� 1.617 - 1.619 (informal complaints against common carriers); 47 C.F.R. � 1.719 (informal complaints regarding unauthorized changes in subscriber carrier selections); 47 C.F.R. �� 6.17 - 6.20, 7.17 - 7.20 (informal disabilities complaints under Section 255); 47 C.F.R. �� 68.417 - 68.420 (informal complaints regarding hearing aid compatibility). 47 U.S.C. � 618(a)(8) (``Nothing in the Commission's rules or this Act shall be construed to preclude a person who files a complaint and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • later. The collections of information contained in sections 64.1150, 64.1160, and 64.1170 are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The procedures and relief described in these sections shall only be available to complainants who allege that the unauthorized carrier change occurred on or after the effective date of these sections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sections 1.719, 64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1140, and 64.1160 ARE ENACTED in accordance with our discussion above, and that these rules are effective 30 days from publication of a summary of the text in the Federal Register or on the date when the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding become effective, whichever is
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988). 18 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See id. 1.729(a). 20 47 U.S.C. 258. 21 Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-67A1.html
  • in keeping with the Congressional intent of the Act that the Commission's rules should strive to make slamming victims whole. Slamming Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1531. See also id. at 1521 (consumers deserve some compensation for the inconvenience and confusion they experience from being slammed). 18 Consumer slamming complaints are adjudicated as informal complaints under section 1.719 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See 47 U.S.C. 258; 47 C.F.R. 64.1120. 20 Response at 8-9, 50. 21 Response at 7-8. 22 Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158, 8169- 72
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00135.txt
  • later. The collections of information contained in sections 64.1150, 64.1160, and 64.1170 are contingent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The procedures and relief described in these sections shall only be available to complainants who allege that the unauthorized carrier change occurred on or after the effective date of these sections. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sections 1.719, 64.1110, 64.1120, 64.1140, and 64.1160 ARE ENACTED in accordance with our discussion above, and that these rules are effective 30 days from publication of a summary of the text in the Federal Register or on the date when the requirements adopted in the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding become effective, whichever is
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-97.pdf
  • $0 $0 1,90950.843.8 0.0 5.4 0.0 Bulgaria $35,47860.711.8 7.320.2 0.0 $7,23472.327.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 $49,712 6.094.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31,17163.819.3 5.012.0 0.0 Croatia $36,21970.315.0 5.7 9.1 0.0 $13,11064.535.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 $42,48298.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 44,48352.921.722.9 2.5 0.0 Czech Republic $48,91278.910.4 6.7 4.0 0.0 $6,56425.174.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 $20,532 3.296.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25,34254.038.5 4.4 3.1 0.0 Estonia $27,30078.2 1.719.8 0.3 0.0 $0 $0 10,90559.4 2.437.7 0.5 0.0 Georgia $19,343 8.677.5 0.013.9 0.0 $0 $0 16,179 3.386.8 0.0 9.9 0.0 Hungary $26,71272.813.5 7.9 5.7 0.0 $16,91130.865.4 0.0 3.7 0.0 $55,99619.880.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 38,99554.429.413.1 3.1 0.0 Kazakhstan $24,91688.6 7.7 0.7 3.0 0.0 $1,538 5.194.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 $0 11,92259.728.1 5.8 6.3 0.0 Kyrgyzstan $24,98219.171.6 0.0 9.3 0.0 $0 $0 14,808
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Intl/4361-f02.pdf
  • 8.2 0.024.1 1.2 $342,43870.0 9.311.8 8.9 0.0 290,459,26142.815.1 3.325.613.3 Romania $31,099,99617.854.3 0.816.011.1 $542,56720.419.1 0.060.5 0.0 $287,130 0.098.8 1.1 0.1 0.0 179,259,430 3.466.5 1.111.118.0 Russia $33,093,69445.017.1 0.625.711.6 $1,600,11028.110.9 0.0 9.551.5 $389,30619.7 4.5 8.3 5.162.3 143,857,47117.416.7 2.934.128.9 Serbia $20,026,60431.210.3 2.126.829.6 $1,255,04962.8 0.0 0.036.4 0.8 $208,30237.2 0.313.049.5 0.0 100,217,68525.014.1 2.521.836.6 Slovakia $6,845,91141.5 6.7 0.929.921.1 $382,94964.710.7 0.024.6 0.0 $59,614 6.869.619.5 4.1 0.0 35,339,10836.3 8.3 1.719.334.5 Slovenia $3,059,33551.5 7.7 0.325.215.2 $238,30370.8 0.0 0.029.2 0.0 $20,021 6.920.232.640.3 0.0 16,306,06647.3 9.5 0.521.421.3 Tajikistan $108,205 0.122.6 6.449.021.9 $0 $781 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 0.0 1,104,791 0.0 7.9 4.279.2 8.8 Turkmenistan $479,258 2.412.3 1.481.3 2.6 $14,545 0.0 0.0 0.0100.0 0.0 $815 0.0 0.040.159.9 0.0 2,200,943 0.310.2 1.886.1 1.6 Ukraine $22,334,39250.919.1 0.815.014.2 $239,43034.810.0 0.055.2 0.0 $66,05023.560.8 9.1 6.6 0.0 99,036,85120.927.8 2.023.925.5 Uzbekistan
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2002/FCC-02-182A1.html
  • Where Formal Complaints are Filed Against Common Carriers, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 1806, 1806, 8 (1988). 18 See 47 C.F.R. 1.721(a)(11). We note that, in contrast to the formal complaint rules, the informal complaint rules place a lesser burden on the complainant with regard to what must be contained in his or her slamming complaint. See 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See id. 1.729(a). 20 47 U.S.C. 258. 21 Pursuant to these procedures, carriers had to (1) obtain the subscriber's written authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order; or (4) send an information package with a
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2003/FCC-03-67A1.html
  • in keeping with the Congressional intent of the Act that the Commission's rules should strive to make slamming victims whole. Slamming Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1531. See also id. at 1521 (consumers deserve some compensation for the inconvenience and confusion they experience from being slammed). 18 Consumer slamming complaints are adjudicated as informal complaints under section 1.719 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.719. 19 See 47 U.S.C. 258; 47 C.F.R. 64.1120. 20 Response at 8-9, 50. 21 Response at 7-8. 22 Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158, 8169- 72
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-380A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-380A1.pdf
  • the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on October 24, 2006, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed from Verizon to AT&T without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified AT&T of the complaint, and AT&T responded on November 29, 2006. AT&T states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with AT&T's response, and we find that a valid authorization was given. We find that AT&T has produced clear and convincing evidence of
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4144A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-4144A1.pdf
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on April 2, 2007, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to OneTouch without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules, we notified OneTouch of the complaint and OneTouch responded on June 6, 2007. OneTouch states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV filed with OneTouch's response, and we find that authorization was given. We find that OneTouch has produced clear and convincing evidence of a valid
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-168A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-168A1.pdf
  • paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier. Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act. We received Complainant's complaint on March 16, 2009, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to BNLD without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of the Commission's rules we notified BNLD of the complaint and BNLD responded on April 23, 2009. BNLD states that authorization was received and confirmed through third party verification (TPV). We have reviewed the TPV that BNLD filed with its response. BNLD's verifier stated that the purpose of the recorded conversation was to ``verify and confirm your account
• http://www.fcc.gov/slamming/part64.pdf
  • by the subscriber. Failure by the carrier to re- spond or provide proof of verification VerDate 0ct<09>2002 01:11 Oct 24, 2002Jkt 197190PO 00000Frm 00272Fmt 8010Sfmt 8010Y:\SGML\197190T.XXX197190T 273 Federal Communications Commission �64.1160 will be presumed to be clear and con- vincing evidence of a violation. (e) Election of Forum. The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a complaint filed pursuant to �1.719 or ��1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter, involving an alleged unauthor- ized change, as defined by �64.1100(e), while a complaint based on the same set of facts is pending with a state commission. [65 FR 47692, Aug. 3, 2000] �64.1160Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid charges. (a) This section shall only apply after a subscriber has determined that