FCC Web Documents citing 64.2401

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 06 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (``Verizon Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.pdf
  • ) ) File No. EB-09-TC-458 Account No. 201132170001 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ``Adopting Order'' means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. ``Bureau'' means the Enforcement Bureau of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.'') See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 (``The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that ``failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.txt
  • Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (``Verizon Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.txt
  • ) ) File No. EB-09-TC-458 Account No. 201132170001 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ``Adopting Order'' means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. ``Bureau'' means the Enforcement Bureau of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.txt
  • its promulgation, section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) of the Commission's rules is without current legal effect and thus may be deleted as obsolete. This Order also finds that a note in Part 64, Subpart Y of the Commission's rules, which establishes Truth-In-Billing Requirements for Common Carriers, no longer has legal effect. The note following the Commission's Truth-In-Billing Requirements, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401, indicates that certain provisions of the rule are not effective and have been stayed until amendments to subsections 64.2401(a), (d), and (e) become effective, pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget and the Commission's publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing this approval and the effective date of these amended subsections. The amendments to the noted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • designed to ensure that consumers are provided with the basic information they need to understand their telecommunications bills. They are also intended to provide consumers with the tools they need to make informed choices in a competitive telecommunications marketplace. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-209, 254, 258 and 403. Section Number and Title: 64.2400 Purpose and scope. 64.2401 Truth-in-Billing Requirements. PART 68-CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK SUBPART D-CONDITIONS FOR TERMINAL EQUIPMENT APPROVAL Brief Description: This rule requires that certain telephone handsets sold in the United States that are hearing aid compatible be labeled with the letters ``HAC'' permanently affixed to them. Need: The label is necessary to advise consumers before the purchase of a telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.txt
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.'') See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 (``The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that ``failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-201591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-201591A1.pdf
  • on Reconsideration (FCC 00-111) in the above-captioned proceeding. These errata correct the following errors in released text prior to publication of the summary of this item in the Federal Register or of the complete item in the FCC Record: Paragraph 14 of the order stays two provisions of the existing rules in contradiction of paragraph 10. First, it stays section 64.2401(a)(1) of the existing rules, which requires service providers to clearly identify on their telephone bills the ``name of the service provider associated with each charge.'' Second, it stays that portion of section 64.2401(a)(2) of the existing rules, which states that ``[w]here charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill, the charges must be separated by service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-206118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-206118A1.pdf
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267167A1.pdf
  • of wireless service providers. Id. at 6467-6478 ¶ ¶ 37- 57. As to the first issue, the Commission reviewed the history of the Truth-in-Billing Rules and concluded "that [wireless service providers] should no longer be exempt from [the] requirement that billing descriptions be brief, clear, non-misleading and in plain language." Id. at 6456 ¶ 16; see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). The Commission found that "the increasing number of consumer complaints to this Commission and state regulatory agencies regarding wireless billing practices provides empirical evidence that application of the truth-in- billing rules to [wireless service providers] is necessary and in the public interest." Second Report and Order, 20 F.C.C.R. at 6457 ¶ 18. The Commission "emphasize[d]" that the application of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission shall review the Interstate Cost Recovery Plan (the TRS Fund) and the TRS Fund administrator's performance after two years (i.e. in 1995). Removed note that certain provisions of the rule are not effective until OMB approval. OMB approval received August 2000. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) 64.2401, removed [Note] 10/13/11 Describes the Commission's former "protest" process. By its express terms, it does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission to review the Interstate Cost Recovery Plan (the TRS Fund) and the TRS Fund administrator's performance after two years (i.e. in 1995). Removed note that certain provisions of the rule are not effective until OMB approval. OMB approval received August 2000. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) 64.2401, removed [Note] 10/13/11 Eliminated rule describing the Commission's former ``protest'' process, which by its express terms does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-255A1.pdf
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.txt
  • Commission Comments at 3; Qwest Comments at 5; SBC Comments at 3-4; Sprint Comments at 2-3; SBC Comments at 3-4; WorldCom Comments at 2, 5. See ASCENT Comments at 4. See id. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4-5; Sprint Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 2; Wisconsin Commission Comments at 4; Teligent ex parte at 2. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(d); Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999), 7533-7534, paras. 65-66 (Truth-in-Billing Order), Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd. 6023 (2000), 6027-6028, para. 11 (creating limited exception when the customer only accesses the bill by e-mail or Internet) (Truth-in-Billing Order on Reconsideration). Presenting a copy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.txt
  • Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of Customer Premises Equipment And Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules In the Interexchange, Exchange Access And Local Exchange Markets, CC Docket Nos. 96-61, 98-183, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 7418, 7446-48, paras. 47-54 (2001) (Bundling Order). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7525-26, para. 54, 7522-25, paras. 49-53 (TIB Order and FNPRM), reconsideration granted in part, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 6023 (2000), Errata, 15 FCC Rcd 16544 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000). See id. at 7523-25, paras. 51-52, 7537, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.txt
  • April 17, 2001 (submitted April 20, 2001) (CIC IMG Report to the NANC). CIC IMG Report to the NANC at 14. Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16009-11, ¶¶ 26-29. Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1564-65, ¶¶ 92-93. See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1100(b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(a), (b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1140(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. , 110 Stat. 87 (1996) (CWAA). Title II of the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). . Third Further Notice, at ¶¶ 9-30. Streamlining Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11231-39, ¶¶ 31-56. See Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1510-12, ¶¶ 1-4. 5 U.S.C § 603(b)(3). 5 U.S.C § 601(3). 15 U.S.C §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. § 228(d)(4); see also 47 C.F. R. § 64.1509(b) and 1510(2). 47 U.S.C. § 228(c)(8)(D); see also 47 C.F. R. § 64.1510(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400-2401; see also Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999) (Truth-in-Billing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). See also Truth-in-Billing Order. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 6023, at 6025, para. 5 (2000) (Truth-in-Billing Reconsideration). We note that the Commission's billing rules specifically do not preempt states from adopting or enforcing their own consistent rules. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400(b). For example, Florida has adopted a rule specifically aimed at pay-per-call problems. See Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.txt
  • Letter). ``Cramming'' refers to the practice of causing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges to be placed on consumers' telephone bills. ``Slamming'' is the submission and execution by a telecommunications carrier of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service. See 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2400 and 64.2401. Americatel Petition at 3-4. In the alternative, Americatel requested that the Commission initiate a rulemaking on these issues. Id. at 4, n.4. See Americatel Petition at 3-4. See Americatel Reply at 5-6. Joint Petition at 1. Id. at 7. See Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 3 (``Cost Considerations'') and 4-8 (``Processing Considerations''). Joint Petition at 8. Joint Petition, Appendix A,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.txt
  • to the consumer and that is specific to that ISP) that, along with a proprietary password, enables the consumer to utilize that particular ISP's Internet access service. We therefore seek comment on whether, given the manner in which broadband Internet access service is provisioned, slamming could actually occur from a technical perspective. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2400-2401. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. See supra Part VIII.B. ``Cramming'' is the practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on a telecommunications bill. Cramming is most likely to occur when a carrier does not clearly or accurately describe all of the relevant charges on the consumer's bill. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400(a). Operations Support for Complaint Analysis and Resolution (OSCAR) System, Consumer & Governmental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.txt
  • the prior relationship.'' Id. at 15. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(3). See 2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14079, para. 113. See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f). See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f). Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(c). See, e.g., the definition of ``clear and conspicuous'' for purposes of the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e): ``clear and conspicuous means notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.'' 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 68.318(d). See also 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B) (making it unlawful for any person within the United States ``to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.txt
  • practices of wireless and other interstate providers raised in this proceeding and outstanding issues from the 1999 Truth-in-Billing Order and Further Notice, we also take this opportunity to reiterate certain aspects of our existing rules and policies affecting billing for telephone service. Specifically, we: 1) remove the existing exemption for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers from 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b) - requiring that billing descriptions be brief, clear, non-misleading and in plain language; 2) reiterate that non-misleading line items are permissible under our rules; 3) reiterate that it is misleading to represent discretionary line item charges in any manner that suggests such line items are taxes or charges required by the government; 4) clarify that the burden rests upon the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.txt
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Talk America Inc. (``Talk America''). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.txt
  • entities retain the flexibility to determine how to meet the clear and conspicuous standard); AGs Comments at 12; EPIC Comments at 5. But see Strang Comments at 2 (should specify the exact wording, location on the page, and font type and size to be used). See amended rule 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(2). See also truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). See S. Rep. No. 109-76 at 12 (``...[S]ection 2(c) would require that the opt-out notice complies with the current provisions of Section 227(d)...which require that any unsolicited fax being sent contain in the margins at the top or bottom of each page the date and time it is sent, the identification of the sender of the message, and the telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.txt
  • Citing as its authority sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), the Commission decided to take a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote truth-in-billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. In general, those truth-in-billing principles, which are codified at section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, require that customer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new providers; (2) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges that appear therein; and (3) contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information the consumer may need to make inquiries about, or to contest charges on the bill. The Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.txt
  • idea that usage information is available); Montgomery County Bill Shock Comments at 1 (indicating that consumers are rarely aware of their ability to set blocks and limits on accounts). We note that in the context of the Commission's truth-in-billing rules that ``clear and conspicuous'' is defined as ``notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). The record in this proceeding confirms that customers of the four largest wireless carriers can access usage history via their handset devices and online accounts for free. See AT&T Bill Shock Comments at 6; Sprint Bill Shock Comments at 5; T-Mobile Bill Shock Comments at 5-6; Verizon Wireless Bill Shock Comments at 4-6. However, there is often a monthly charge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.txt
  • violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. Citing as its authority Sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Act, the Commission chose to adopt a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote truth-in-billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. In general, those Truth-in-Billing principles, which are codified at section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, require that customer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new provider (i.e., one that did not bill the customer for service during the last billing cycle); (2) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of the charges that appear therein; and (3) contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.txt
  • in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Citing its authority under sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Act, the Commission chose to adopt a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote Truth-in-Billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. The Truth-in-Billing principles are codified at sections 64.2400 and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules and, among other things, require that consumer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new provider (i.e., one that did not bill the customer for service during the last billing cycle); (2) separate charges by service provider; (3) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of the charges that appear therein; and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-72A1.pdf
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.wp
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html
  • for Wireless [24]Providers Only [25]Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) [26]Fax Advertising [27]Operator Services [28]Pay-Per-Call [29]Slamming [30]Telemarketing [31]Truth-In-Billing [32]Policy Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [33]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [34]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [35]Filing a complaint with the FCC is easy. Truth-In-Billing Policy The Commission has adopted Truth-in-Billing rules to improve consumers' understanding of their telephone bills. Among other things, section 64.2401 of the rules require that a telephone company's bill must: (1) be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered; (2) identify the service provider associated with each charge; (3) clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider; (4) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges; (5) identify those charges for which
• http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbillSpanish.html
  • de Mercadeo [26]Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz [27]Normas Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [28]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [29]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [30]Es fcil presentar una queja ante la FCC. Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz La Comisin ha adoptado las normas para la Facturacin Veraz para hacer que los consumidores comprendan mejor sus cuentas telefnicas. Entre otros requisitos, la seccin 64.2401 de las normas exige que la cuenta de la compaa de telfono debe: (1) incluir una descripcin del servicio o de los servicios ofrecidos que sea clara, breve, sencilla y que no sea engaosa; (2) debe identificar el proveedor de servicio asociado con cada cargo; (3) identificar clara y visiblemente cualquier cambio en el proveedor de servicios; (4) debe reflejar
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.pdf
  • Crossing, Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). 2. On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 3.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-187A1.html
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and Talk America Inc. ("Talk America"). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. 2. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the "Midwest ILECs"), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PacBell") and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. ("SWBT") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401. 2. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A2.html
  • Data Usage Charges ) FRN 0019212406 ) ) CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS 1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 151 et seq. b. "Adopting Order" means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. c. "Bureau" means
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.") See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 ("The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that "failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da993010.doc
  • accomplish compliance. II. DISCUSSION The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant matters, we find that specific computer programming tasks have taken longer than anticipated to accomplish despite carriers' reasonable and good faith efforts to achieve compliance with our rules. For instance, sections 64.2401(a)(1), (a)(2), and 64.2401(d) of our rules require that telephone bills must include the name and toll free inquiry contact number of the carrier that is providing the service. The petitioning carriers state they are capable of listing their name and toll free number on their bills with respect to their own charges. However, numerous carriers state that, in order to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.wp
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000745.doc
  • on Reconsideration (FCC 00-111) in the above-captioned proceeding. These errata correct the following errors in released text prior to publication of the summary of this item in the Federal Register or of the complete item in the FCC Record: Paragraph 14 of the order stays two provisions of the existing rules in contradiction of paragraph 10. First, it stays section 64.2401(a)(1) of the existing rules, which requires service providers to clearly identify on their telephone bills the ``name of the service provider associated with each charge.'' Second, it stays that portion of section 64.2401(a)(2) of the existing rules, which states that ``[w]here charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill, the charges must be separated by service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000746.doc
  • certain requirements of the Order could impair the efforts of small and medium-sized telecommunications carriers to ensure that their systems were Y2K-compliant. On September 30, 1999, the Commission, recognizing that ensuring Y2K compliance of telecommunications-related computer systems was an important public concern, postponed the effective date of two of the requirements until April 1, 2000. The affected rules were subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers highlight new service providers and subsection 64.2401(c)'s requirement that carriers identify deniable and non-deniable charges. The Commission specified that all other principles and guidelines adopted in the TIB Order, including subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers separate charges on bills by service provider, would become effective on November 12, 1999, 30 days after Federal Register publication of notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000893.doc
  • certain requirements of the Order could impair the efforts of small and medium-sized telecommunications carriers to ensure that their systems were Y2K-compliant. On September 30, 1999, the Commission, recognizing that ensuring Y2K compliance of telecommunications-related computer systems was an important public concern, postponed the effective date of two of the requirements until April 1, 2000. The affected rules were subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers highlight new service providers and subsection 64.2401(c)'s requirement that carriers identify deniable and non-deniable charges. The Commission specified that all other principles and guidelines adopted in the TIB Order, including subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers separate charges on bills by service provider, would become effective on November 12, 1999, 30 days after Federal Register publication of notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00111.doc
  • service will be cut off for failure to pay such charges. While we approve of SNET's approach, we reiterate that carrier's retain broad flexibility to use other methods on telephone bills that adequately provide this essential information to consumers. We also note that, upon customer inquiry, a carrier's customer service personnel must explain this distinction to customers. Bundled Services Section 64.2401(a)(2) of our rules provides that, where charges for two or more telephone companies appear on the same bill, the charges must be separated by service provider. SBC seeks clarification on the applicability of section 64.2401(a)(2) to bundled services. Bundled services are various types of services, such as telephone, cable, and Internet services, that are offered and billed by a single
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00255.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00255.txt
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl991230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl991230.html
  • Cornell University, The National Academies, Virtual Geosatellite, LLC, Globalstar, L.P. December 21 In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp. Transferee (CS Docket No. 99-251). Reply Comments - National Cable Television Association. In the Matter of Mid America Computer Corporation Joint Petition for Interim Waiver of Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules (CC Docket No. 98-170). Joint Petition for Interim Waiver - Mid America Computer Corporation and Client Companies. In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 1,21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions request for Declaratory Ruling (MM Docket No. 97-217/RM-9060). Petition for Reconsideration -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000403.html
  • the Commission. Adopted: March 29, 2000. by NPRM. (FCC No. 00-117). OMD Internet URL: [17]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc00117.doc ADDENDA: The following items, released March 31, 2000, did not appear in Digest No. 61: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TRUTH-IN-BILLING AND BILLING FORMAT. Denied petitions specified in the Order seeking limited temporary waiver from compliance with any of the requirements of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.2401. Dkt No.: CC-98-170. Action by Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 31, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-746). CCB Internet URL: [18]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000746.doc BROADWING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. Granted limited waiver to the extent necessary to enable Broadwing to change the preferred carrier of certain consumers currently presubscribed to Cincinnati Bell Long Distance, Inc. to Broadwing. Dkt No.: CC-94-129. Action by Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000420.html
  • April 18, 2000. by Errata. (DA No. 00-887). WTB Internet URL: [19]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000887.doc ADDENDA: The following items, released April 19, 2000, did not appear in Digest No. 74: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TRUTH-IN-BILLING AND BILLING FORMAT. Denied the petitions, specified in this Order, that seek limited or temporary waiver from compliance with any of the requirements of 47 C.F.R Section 64.2401 by April 1, 2000. Dkt No.: CC-98-170. Action by Chief, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: April 19, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-893). CCB Internet URL: [20]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000893.doc [21][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2000/nren0005.pdf 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt041900.pdf 3. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Consumer_Information/Public_Notices/2000/pnci0038.doc 4. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/2000/pnin0098.pdf 5. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac000420.txt 6. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/ap000420.txt 7. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/ITFS_Notices/vxac0420.html 8. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Radio_Cutoffs/pnmm0031.doc 9. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/2000/pnmc0006.doc 10. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/2000/ex000420.html 11. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/2000/ex000420.html 12. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000899.doc 13. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000895.doc 14. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000888.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html
  • for Wireless [24]Providers Only [25]Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) [26]Fax Advertising [27]Operator Services [28]Pay-Per-Call [29]Slamming [30]Telemarketing [31]Truth-In-Billing [32]Policy Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [33]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [34]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [35]Filing a complaint with the FCC is easy. Truth-In-Billing Policy The Commission has adopted Truth-in-Billing rules to improve consumers' understanding of their telephone bills. Among other things, section 64.2401 of the rules require that a telephone company's bill must: (1) be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered; (2) identify the service provider associated with each charge; (3) clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider; (4) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges; (5) identify those charges for which
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbillSpanish.html
  • de Mercadeo [26]Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz [27]Normas Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [28]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [29]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [30]Es fcil presentar una queja ante la FCC. Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz La Comisin ha adoptado las normas para la Facturacin Veraz para hacer que los consumidores comprendan mejor sus cuentas telefnicas. Entre otros requisitos, la seccin 64.2401 de las normas exige que la cuenta de la compaa de telfono debe: (1) incluir una descripcin del servicio o de los servicios ofrecidos que sea clara, breve, sencilla y que no sea engaosa; (2) debe identificar el proveedor de servicio asociado con cada cargo; (3) identificar clara y visiblemente cualquier cambio en el proveedor de servicios; (4) debe reflejar
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.pdf
  • Crossing, Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). 2. On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 3.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-187A1.html
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and Talk America Inc. ("Talk America"). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. 2. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the "Midwest ILECs"), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PacBell") and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. ("SWBT") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401. 2. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A2.html
  • Data Usage Charges ) FRN 0019212406 ) ) CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS 1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 151 et seq. b. "Adopting Order" means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. c. "Bureau" means
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.") See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 ("The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that "failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.pdf
  • Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (``Verizon Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.pdf
  • ) ) File No. EB-09-TC-458 Account No. 201132170001 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ``Adopting Order'' means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. ``Bureau'' means the Enforcement Bureau of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.'') See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 (``The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that ``failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-3016A1.txt
  • Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. §§ 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. §§ 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1065A1.txt
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the ``Midwest ILECs''), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company (``PacBell'') and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. (``SWBT'') under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A1.txt
  • Bureau: In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') of the Federal Communications Commission (``Commission'') and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (``Verizon Wireless''). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest would be
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-2068A2.txt
  • ) ) File No. EB-09-TC-458 Account No. 201132170001 CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. ``Adopting Order'' means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. ``Bureau'' means the Enforcement Bureau of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1649A1.txt
  • its promulgation, section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) of the Commission's rules is without current legal effect and thus may be deleted as obsolete. This Order also finds that a note in Part 64, Subpart Y of the Commission's rules, which establishes Truth-In-Billing Requirements for Common Carriers, no longer has legal effect. The note following the Commission's Truth-In-Billing Requirements, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401, indicates that certain provisions of the rule are not effective and have been stayed until amendments to subsections 64.2401(a), (d), and (e) become effective, pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget and the Commission's publication of a document in the Federal Register announcing this approval and the effective date of these amended subsections. The amendments to the noted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-412A1.txt
  • designed to ensure that consumers are provided with the basic information they need to understand their telecommunications bills. They are also intended to provide consumers with the tools they need to make informed choices in a competitive telecommunications marketplace. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (j), 201-209, 254, 258 and 403. Section Number and Title: 64.2400 Purpose and scope. 64.2401 Truth-in-Billing Requirements. PART 68-CONNECTION OF TERMINAL EQUIPMENT TO THE TELEPHONE NETWORK SUBPART D-CONDITIONS FOR TERMINAL EQUIPMENT APPROVAL Brief Description: This rule requires that certain telephone handsets sold in the United States that are hearing aid compatible be labeled with the letters ``HAC'' permanently affixed to them. Need: The label is necessary to advise consumers before the purchase of a telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-562A1.txt
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.'') See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 (``The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that ``failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-201591A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-201591A1.pdf
  • on Reconsideration (FCC 00-111) in the above-captioned proceeding. These errata correct the following errors in released text prior to publication of the summary of this item in the Federal Register or of the complete item in the FCC Record: Paragraph 14 of the order stays two provisions of the existing rules in contradiction of paragraph 10. First, it stays section 64.2401(a)(1) of the existing rules, which requires service providers to clearly identify on their telephone bills the ``name of the service provider associated with each charge.'' Second, it stays that portion of section 64.2401(a)(2) of the existing rules, which states that ``[w]here charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill, the charges must be separated by service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-206118A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-206118A1.pdf
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-267167A1.pdf
  • of wireless service providers. Id. at 6467-6478 ¶ ¶ 37- 57. As to the first issue, the Commission reviewed the history of the Truth-in-Billing Rules and concluded "that [wireless service providers] should no longer be exempt from [the] requirement that billing descriptions be brief, clear, non-misleading and in plain language." Id. at 6456 ¶ 16; see also 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). The Commission found that "the increasing number of consumer complaints to this Commission and state regulatory agencies regarding wireless billing practices provides empirical evidence that application of the truth-in- billing rules to [wireless service providers] is necessary and in the public interest." Second Report and Order, 20 F.C.C.R. at 6457 ¶ 18. The Commission "emphasize[d]" that the application of the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-310874A1.txt
  • Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission shall review the Interstate Cost Recovery Plan (the TRS Fund) and the TRS Fund administrator's performance after two years (i.e. in 1995). Removed note that certain provisions of the rule are not effective until OMB approval. OMB approval received August 2000. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) 64.2401, removed [Note] 10/13/11 Describes the Commission's former "protest" process. By its express terms, it does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 Adopted 9/30/11 pending FR publication These sections pertain to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-314166A1.txt
  • Part 1, Subpart D Broadcast Applications & Proceedings (duplicative of rules in Part 73). 1.502-615 9/9/11 Required Commission to review the Interstate Cost Recovery Plan (the TRS Fund) and the TRS Fund administrator's performance after two years (i.e. in 1995). Removed note that certain provisions of the rule are not effective until OMB approval. OMB approval received August 2000. 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(J) 64.2401, removed [Note] 10/13/11 Eliminated rule describing the Commission's former ``protest'' process, which by its express terms does not apply to applications filed on or after December 12, 1960. 1.120 11/16/11 Eliminated rule sections pertaining to comparative hearings for broadcast license renewal applications. The enactment of section 309(k) of the Communications Act of 1934 eliminated comparative broadcast hearings for license renewal
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-255A1.pdf
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-156A1.txt
  • Commission Comments at 3; Qwest Comments at 5; SBC Comments at 3-4; Sprint Comments at 2-3; SBC Comments at 3-4; WorldCom Comments at 2, 5. See ASCENT Comments at 4. See id. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4-5; Sprint Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 2; Wisconsin Commission Comments at 4; Teligent ex parte at 2. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(d); Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999), 7533-7534, paras. 65-66 (Truth-in-Billing Order), Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd. 6023 (2000), 6027-6028, para. 11 (creating limited exception when the customer only accesses the bill by e-mail or Internet) (Truth-in-Billing Order on Reconsideration). Presenting a copy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-329A1.txt
  • Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Review of Customer Premises Equipment And Enhanced Services Unbundling Rules In the Interexchange, Exchange Access And Local Exchange Markets, CC Docket Nos. 96-61, 98-183, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 7418, 7446-48, paras. 47-54 (2001) (Bundling Order). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7525-26, para. 54, 7522-25, paras. 49-53 (TIB Order and FNPRM), reconsideration granted in part, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 6023 (2000), Errata, 15 FCC Rcd 16544 (Com. Car. Bur. 2000). See id. at 7523-25, paras. 51-52, 7537, para.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-153A1.txt
  • April 17, 2001 (submitted April 20, 2001) (CIC IMG Report to the NANC). CIC IMG Report to the NANC at 14. Third Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16009-11, ¶¶ 26-29. Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1564-65, ¶¶ 92-93. See also 47 C.F.R. § 64.1100(b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150(a), (b); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1140(b)(1). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. , 110 Stat. 87 (1996) (CWAA). Title II of the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). . Third Further Notice, at ¶¶ 9-30. Streamlining Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 11231-39, ¶¶ 31-56. See Section 258 Order, 14 FCC Rcd at 1510-12, ¶¶ 1-4. 5 U.S.C § 603(b)(3). 5 U.S.C § 601(3). 15 U.S.C §
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-162A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. § 228(d)(4); see also 47 C.F. R. § 64.1509(b) and 1510(2). 47 U.S.C. § 228(c)(8)(D); see also 47 C.F. R. § 64.1510(c). See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400-2401; see also Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, CC Docket No. 98-170, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 7492 (1999) (Truth-in-Billing Order). 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b). See also Truth-in-Billing Order. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 6023, at 6025, para. 5 (2000) (Truth-in-Billing Reconsideration). We note that the Commission's billing rules specifically do not preempt states from adopting or enforcing their own consistent rules. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400(b). For example, Florida has adopted a rule specifically aimed at pay-per-call problems. See Policies
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-50A1.txt
  • Letter). ``Cramming'' refers to the practice of causing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges to be placed on consumers' telephone bills. ``Slamming'' is the submission and execution by a telecommunications carrier of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service. See 47 U.S.C. § 258(a). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2400 and 64.2401. Americatel Petition at 3-4. In the alternative, Americatel requested that the Commission initiate a rulemaking on these issues. Id. at 4, n.4. See Americatel Petition at 3-4. See Americatel Reply at 5-6. Joint Petition at 1. Id. at 7. See Joint Petition, Appendix A, at 3 (``Cost Considerations'') and 4-8 (``Processing Considerations''). Joint Petition at 8. Joint Petition, Appendix A,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-150A1.txt
  • to the consumer and that is specific to that ISP) that, along with a proprietary password, enables the consumer to utilize that particular ISP's Internet access service. We therefore seek comment on whether, given the manner in which broadband Internet access service is provisioned, slamming could actually occur from a technical perspective. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.2400-2401. 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. See supra Part VIII.B. ``Cramming'' is the practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on a telecommunications bill. Cramming is most likely to occur when a carrier does not clearly or accurately describe all of the relevant charges on the consumer's bill. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2400(a). Operations Support for Complaint Analysis and Resolution (OSCAR) System, Consumer & Governmental
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-206A1.txt
  • the prior relationship.'' Id. at 15. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(3). See 2003 TCPA Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 14079, para. 113. See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f). See Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(f). Junk Fax Prevention Act, Sec. 2(c). See, e.g., the definition of ``clear and conspicuous'' for purposes of the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e): ``clear and conspicuous means notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.'' 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3). Id. 47 C.F.R. § 68.318(d). See also 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(1)(B) (making it unlawful for any person within the United States ``to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person clearly marks,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-55A1.txt
  • practices of wireless and other interstate providers raised in this proceeding and outstanding issues from the 1999 Truth-in-Billing Order and Further Notice, we also take this opportunity to reiterate certain aspects of our existing rules and policies affecting billing for telephone service. Specifically, we: 1) remove the existing exemption for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers from 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b) - requiring that billing descriptions be brief, clear, non-misleading and in plain language; 2) reiterate that non-misleading line items are permissible under our rules; 3) reiterate that it is misleading to represent discretionary line item charges in any manner that suggests such line items are taxes or charges required by the government; 4) clarify that the burden rests upon the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-187A1.txt
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the ``FCC'' or ``Commission'') and Talk America Inc. (``Talk America''). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. § 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that the public
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-42A1.txt
  • entities retain the flexibility to determine how to meet the clear and conspicuous standard); AGs Comments at 12; EPIC Comments at 5. But see Strang Comments at 2 (should specify the exact wording, location on the page, and font type and size to be used). See amended rule 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(2). See also truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). See S. Rep. No. 109-76 at 12 (``...[S]ection 2(c) would require that the opt-out notice complies with the current provisions of Section 227(d)...which require that any unsolicited fax being sent contain in the margins at the top or bottom of each page the date and time it is sent, the identification of the sender of the message, and the telephone
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-68A1.txt
  • Citing as its authority sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), the Commission decided to take a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote truth-in-billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. In general, those truth-in-billing principles, which are codified at section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, require that customer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new providers; (2) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges that appear therein; and (3) contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information the consumer may need to make inquiries about, or to contest charges on the bill. The Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-180A1.txt
  • idea that usage information is available); Montgomery County Bill Shock Comments at 1 (indicating that consumers are rarely aware of their ability to set blocks and limits on accounts). We note that in the context of the Commission's truth-in-billing rules that ``clear and conspicuous'' is defined as ``notice that would be apparent to the reasonable consumer.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401(e). The record in this proceeding confirms that customers of the four largest wireless carriers can access usage history via their handset devices and online accounts for free. See AT&T Bill Shock Comments at 6; Sprint Bill Shock Comments at 5; T-Mobile Bill Shock Comments at 5-6; Verizon Wireless Bill Shock Comments at 4-6. However, there is often a monthly charge
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-106A1.txt
  • violation of Section 201(b) of the Act. Citing as its authority Sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Act, the Commission chose to adopt a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote truth-in-billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. In general, those Truth-in-Billing principles, which are codified at section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, require that customer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new provider (i.e., one that did not bill the customer for service during the last billing cycle); (2) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of the charges that appear therein; and (3) contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-42A1.txt
  • in violation of section 201(b) of the Act. Citing its authority under sections 201(b) and 258(a) of the Act, the Commission chose to adopt a flexible approach by adopting ``broad, binding principles'' to promote Truth-in-Billing, rather than mandating more detailed rules to govern the details or format of carrier billing practices. The Truth-in-Billing principles are codified at sections 64.2400 and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules and, among other things, require that consumer bills: (1) be clearly organized, clearly identify the service provider, and highlight any new provider (i.e., one that did not bill the customer for service during the last billing cycle); (2) separate charges by service provider; (3) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of the charges that appear therein; and
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-72A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-99-72A1.pdf
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.wp
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html
  • for Wireless [24]Providers Only [25]Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) [26]Fax Advertising [27]Operator Services [28]Pay-Per-Call [29]Slamming [30]Telemarketing [31]Truth-In-Billing [32]Policy Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [33]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [34]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [35]Filing a complaint with the FCC is easy. Truth-In-Billing Policy The Commission has adopted Truth-in-Billing rules to improve consumers' understanding of their telephone bills. Among other things, section 64.2401 of the rules require that a telephone company's bill must: (1) be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered; (2) identify the service provider associated with each charge; (3) clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider; (4) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges; (5) identify those charges for which
• http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbillSpanish.html
  • de Mercadeo [26]Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz [27]Normas Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [28]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [29]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [30]Es fcil presentar una queja ante la FCC. Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz La Comisin ha adoptado las normas para la Facturacin Veraz para hacer que los consumidores comprendan mejor sus cuentas telefnicas. Entre otros requisitos, la seccin 64.2401 de las normas exige que la cuenta de la compaa de telfono debe: (1) incluir una descripcin del servicio o de los servicios ofrecidos que sea clara, breve, sencilla y que no sea engaosa; (2) debe identificar el proveedor de servicio asociado con cada cargo; (3) identificar clara y visiblemente cualquier cambio en el proveedor de servicios; (4) debe reflejar
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.html http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.pdf
  • Crossing, Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). 2. On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 3.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-187A1.html
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and Talk America Inc. ("Talk America"). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. 2. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2009/DA-09-1065A1.html
  • Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, and Wisconsin Bell, Inc. (collectively, the "Midwest ILECs"), and against Pacific Bell Telephone Company ("PacBell") and Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. ("SWBT") under section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). In short, the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 201(b), 251(b)(5), and 415 of the Act, and sections 20.11, 51.703, and 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, by (a) unlawfully charging MAP for (i) transport and termination of Defendant-originated traffic and (ii) services that MAP cancelled or never requested; (b) failing to pay MAP for terminating local traffic; (c) providing unclear and confusing bills; and (d) demanding payment of charges that were more than two years old. MAP bifurcated its claims for damages
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401. 2. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A2.html
  • Data Usage Charges ) FRN 0019212406 ) ) CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS 1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 151 et seq. b. "Adopting Order" means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. c. "Bureau" means
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.") See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 ("The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that "failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/da993010.doc
  • accomplish compliance. II. DISCUSSION The Commission may exercise its discretion to waive a rule where particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest. In the instant matters, we find that specific computer programming tasks have taken longer than anticipated to accomplish despite carriers' reasonable and good faith efforts to achieve compliance with our rules. For instance, sections 64.2401(a)(1), (a)(2), and 64.2401(d) of our rules require that telephone bills must include the name and toll free inquiry contact number of the carrier that is providing the service. The petitioning carriers state they are capable of listing their name and toll free number on their bills with respect to their own charges. However, numerous carriers state that, in order to
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1999/fcc99072.wp
  • to reduce slamming and other telecommunications fraud by setting standards for bills for telecommunications service. These rules are also intended to aid customers in understanding their telecommunications bills, and to provide them with the tools they need to make informed choices in the market for telecommunications service. (b) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common carriers, except that rules 64.2401(a)(2), 64.2401(b), and 64.2401(c) shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as defined in section 20.9 of the Commission's rules, or to other providers of mobile service as defined in section 20.7 of the Commission's rules, unless the Commission determines otherwise in a further rulemaking. (c) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements contained in this subpart are not
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000745.doc
  • on Reconsideration (FCC 00-111) in the above-captioned proceeding. These errata correct the following errors in released text prior to publication of the summary of this item in the Federal Register or of the complete item in the FCC Record: Paragraph 14 of the order stays two provisions of the existing rules in contradiction of paragraph 10. First, it stays section 64.2401(a)(1) of the existing rules, which requires service providers to clearly identify on their telephone bills the ``name of the service provider associated with each charge.'' Second, it stays that portion of section 64.2401(a)(2) of the existing rules, which states that ``[w]here charges for two or more carriers appear on the same telephone bill, the charges must be separated by service
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000746.doc
  • certain requirements of the Order could impair the efforts of small and medium-sized telecommunications carriers to ensure that their systems were Y2K-compliant. On September 30, 1999, the Commission, recognizing that ensuring Y2K compliance of telecommunications-related computer systems was an important public concern, postponed the effective date of two of the requirements until April 1, 2000. The affected rules were subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers highlight new service providers and subsection 64.2401(c)'s requirement that carriers identify deniable and non-deniable charges. The Commission specified that all other principles and guidelines adopted in the TIB Order, including subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers separate charges on bills by service provider, would become effective on November 12, 1999, 30 days after Federal Register publication of notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000893.doc
  • certain requirements of the Order could impair the efforts of small and medium-sized telecommunications carriers to ensure that their systems were Y2K-compliant. On September 30, 1999, the Commission, recognizing that ensuring Y2K compliance of telecommunications-related computer systems was an important public concern, postponed the effective date of two of the requirements until April 1, 2000. The affected rules were subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers highlight new service providers and subsection 64.2401(c)'s requirement that carriers identify deniable and non-deniable charges. The Commission specified that all other principles and guidelines adopted in the TIB Order, including subsection 64.2401(a)(1)'s requirement that carriers separate charges on bills by service provider, would become effective on November 12, 1999, 30 days after Federal Register publication of notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00111.doc
  • service will be cut off for failure to pay such charges. While we approve of SNET's approach, we reiterate that carrier's retain broad flexibility to use other methods on telephone bills that adequately provide this essential information to consumers. We also note that, upon customer inquiry, a carrier's customer service personnel must explain this distinction to customers. Bundled Services Section 64.2401(a)(2) of our rules provides that, where charges for two or more telephone companies appear on the same bill, the charges must be separated by service provider. SBC seeks clarification on the applicability of section 64.2401(a)(2) to bundled services. Bundled services are various types of services, such as telephone, cable, and Internet services, that are offered and billed by a single
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00255.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/fcc00255.txt
  • a minimum number of complaints. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 7. See Bell Atlantic Suppl. Comments at 4; USTA Suppl. Comments at 5-6. See also supra, ¶ 2. Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 98-170, 14 FCC Rcd 7492, 7510 (released May 11, 1999) (subsequent history omitted); 47 C.F.R. § 64.2401. AT&T Suppl. Comments at 6-7 (``For example, for the first five months of this year the monthly average number of complaints regarding its resellers reported to AT&T-including, but not limited to, complaints of `soft slamming'-was less than 20 percent the average monthly number of such complaints during the corresponding period in 1999.''). See WorldCom Suppl. Reply at 2 (``Based on
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl991230.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Filings/fl991230.html
  • Cornell University, The National Academies, Virtual Geosatellite, LLC, Globalstar, L.P. December 21 In the Matter of Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses MediaOne Group, Inc., Transferor, to AT&T Corp. Transferee (CS Docket No. 99-251). Reply Comments - National Cable Television Association. In the Matter of Mid America Computer Corporation Joint Petition for Interim Waiver of Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules (CC Docket No. 98-170). Joint Petition for Interim Waiver - Mid America Computer Corporation and Client Companies. In the Matter of Amendment of Parts 1,21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions request for Declaratory Ruling (MM Docket No. 97-217/RM-9060). Petition for Reconsideration -
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000403.html
  • the Commission. Adopted: March 29, 2000. by NPRM. (FCC No. 00-117). OMD Internet URL: [17]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OMD/Notices/fcc00117.doc ADDENDA: The following items, released March 31, 2000, did not appear in Digest No. 61: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TRUTH-IN-BILLING AND BILLING FORMAT. Denied petitions specified in the Order seeking limited temporary waiver from compliance with any of the requirements of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.2401. Dkt No.: CC-98-170. Action by Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: March 31, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-746). CCB Internet URL: [18]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000746.doc BROADWING TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. Granted limited waiver to the extent necessary to enable Broadwing to change the preferred carrier of certain consumers currently presubscribed to Cincinnati Bell Long Distance, Inc. to Broadwing. Dkt No.: CC-94-129. Action by Deputy Chief,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2000/dd000420.html
  • April 18, 2000. by Errata. (DA No. 00-887). WTB Internet URL: [19]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000887.doc ADDENDA: The following items, released April 19, 2000, did not appear in Digest No. 74: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TEXTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- TRUTH-IN-BILLING AND BILLING FORMAT. Denied the petitions, specified in this Order, that seek limited or temporary waiver from compliance with any of the requirements of 47 C.F.R Section 64.2401 by April 1, 2000. Dkt No.: CC-98-170. Action by Chief, Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau. Adopted: April 19, 2000. by Order. (DA No. 00-893). CCB Internet URL: [20]http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/2000/da000893.doc [21][icon bar] References 1. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2000/nren0005.pdf 2. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Public_Notices/Tariffs/combined/tt041900.pdf 3. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Consumer_Information/Public_Notices/2000/pnci0038.doc 4. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Public_Notices/2000/pnin0098.pdf 5. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Actions/ac000420.txt 6. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Brdcst_Applications/ap000420.txt 7. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/ITFS_Notices/vxac0420.html 8. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Public_Notices/Radio_Cutoffs/pnmm0031.doc 9. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/2000/pnmc0006.doc 10. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/2000/ex000420.html 11. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/Public_Notices/Exparte/2000/ex000420.html 12. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000899.doc 13. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000895.doc 14. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Public_Notices/2000/da000888.doc
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbill.html
  • for Wireless [24]Providers Only [25]Customer Account Record Exchange (CARE) [26]Fax Advertising [27]Operator Services [28]Pay-Per-Call [29]Slamming [30]Telemarketing [31]Truth-In-Billing [32]Policy Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [33]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [34]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [35]Filing a complaint with the FCC is easy. Truth-In-Billing Policy The Commission has adopted Truth-in-Billing rules to improve consumers' understanding of their telephone bills. Among other things, section 64.2401 of the rules require that a telephone company's bill must: (1) be accompanied by a brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services rendered; (2) identify the service provider associated with each charge; (3) clearly and conspicuously identify any change in service provider; (4) contain full and non-misleading descriptions of charges; (5) identify those charges for which
• http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/truthinbillSpanish.html
  • de Mercadeo [26]Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz [27]Normas Home Page ____________________________________________________________________ [28]ECFS Express File your comments electronically using [29]ECFS Express. ____________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINTS: [30]Es fcil presentar una queja ante la FCC. Normas Para la Facturacin Veraz La Comisin ha adoptado las normas para la Facturacin Veraz para hacer que los consumidores comprendan mejor sus cuentas telefnicas. Entre otros requisitos, la seccin 64.2401 de las normas exige que la cuenta de la compaa de telfono debe: (1) incluir una descripcin del servicio o de los servicios ofrecidos que sea clara, breve, sencilla y que no sea engaosa; (2) debe identificar el proveedor de servicio asociado con cada cargo; (3) identificar clara y visiblemente cualquier cambio en el proveedor de servicios; (4) debe reflejar
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/da013016.pdf
  • Crossing, Ltd. (``Global Crossing'') pursuant to section 208 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), 47 U.S.C. 208. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Global Crossing imposed unauthorized and hidden charges on Xact, and illegally terminated Xact's subscribers' 800 numbers without notice in violation of sections 201(a), 201(b), and 253(e) of the Act and sections 63.71(a) and 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. 201(a), 201(b), 253(e); 47 C.F.R. 63.71(a), 64.2401(b). 2. On December 21, 2001, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss in which they stated that they had reached a mutually acceptable settlement of all issues raised in this proceeding. Their Joint Motion, therefore, petitions the Commission to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. 3.
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2006/FCC-06-187A1.html
  • we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") and Talk America Inc. ("Talk America"). The Consent Decree terminates a Truth-in-Billing investigation initiated by the Enforcement Bureau of the FCC regarding Talk America's compliance with section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 201(b), section 64.2401(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S 64.2401(b), and the Commission's orders. 2. The Commission and Talk America have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that would resolve these matters and terminate the investigation. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree, we find that
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A1.html
  • 1. In this Order, we adopt the attached Consent Decree entered into between the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") of the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"). The Consent Decree terminates an investigation against Verizon Wireless for possible violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 201(b), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401. 2. The Bureau and Verizon Wireless have negotiated the terms of a Consent Decree that resolves this matter. A copy of the Consent Decree is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public interest
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2010/DA-10-2068A2.html
  • Data Usage Charges ) FRN 0019212406 ) ) CONSENT DECREE The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, by their authorized representatives, hereby enter into this Consent Decree for the purpose of terminating the Bureau's Investigation into potential violations of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Section 64.2401 of the Commission's Rules. I. DEFINITIONS 1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Act" means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. S: 151 et seq. b. "Adopting Order" means an Order of the Bureau adopting the terms of this Consent Decree without change, addition, deletion, or modification. c. "Bureau" means
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2012/DA-12-562A1.html
  • Thus, the notice must be distinguishable from the advertising material through, for example, use of bolding, italics, different font, or the like. We clarify that, in accordance with the Junk Fax Prevention Act, if there are several pages to the fax, the first page of the advertisement must contain the opt-out notice.") See also Truth-in-billing requirements at 47 C.F.R. S: 64.2401(e). 47 U.S.C. S: 227(b)(2)(D)(i). See Complaint dated August 21, 2007, from C. Stinnett. See also 2006 TCPA Report and Order and Third Order on Reconsideration at 21 FCC Rcd 3787, 3803-4, paras. 30-31 ("The Junk Fax Prevention Act requires that the opt-out notice on the facsimile advertisement states that "failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by