[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40184-40185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16845]



[[Page 40184]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 64

[CC Docket No. 94-129; FCC 03-42]


Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules 
Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document we clarify certain issues pertaining to the 
Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Reconsideration Order), regarding Unauthorized Changes of 
Consumers' Long Distance Carriers. In the Reconsideration Order, we 
stated that, given the proliferation of customers that are now or may 
soon be served by LECs that also provide interexchange services, it was 
necessary to require verification of long distance carrier change 
requests that occur when a customer initiates a call to a LEC. We 
clarify here that such verification by a LEC is required only when the 
carrier change involves the LEC or an affiliate of the LEC. In-bound 
customer requests to change long distance carriers, made directly to a 
LEC, remain exempted in cases where the LEC or its long distance 
affiliate is not the subject of the long distance carrier change.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Stevenson, 202-418-7039, 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
clarifying issues in the Third Order on Reconsideration and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 03-
42, released March 17, 2003 and published in the Federal Register on 
April 18, 2003 (68 FR 19152). The full text of this document is 
available on the Commission's website Electronic Comment Filing System 
and for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554.

I. Synopsis of Clarifying Order

    1. In this Order, we clarify certain issues pertaining to the Third 
Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Reconsideration Order) in the above-captioned proceeding. 
In the Reconsideration Order, we addressed issues raised in petitions 
for reconsideration of a series of orders implementing section 258 of 
the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act). Section 258 makes it 
unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to ``submit or execute a 
change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange 
service or telephone toll service, except in accordance with such 
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.'' Since the 
release of the Reconsideration Order, several parties have requested 
that the Commission clarify a portion of that order concerning the 
carrier change verification responsibilities of local exchange carriers 
(``LECs'').
    2. Prior to the adoption of the Reconsideration Order, in the 
Second Report and Order the Commission found that all changes to a 
subscriber's preferred carrier, including local exchange, intraLATA 
toll, and interLATA toll services, must be authorized by the subscriber 
and verified in accordance with the Commission's procedures. In 
addition, the Commission found in the Second Report and Order that its 
rules concerning customer verification of preferred carrier change 
requests should apply to ``in-bound'' as well as ``out-bound'' calls, 
stating that ``it serves the public interest to offer consumers who 
initiate calls to carriers the same protection under the verification 
rules as those consumers who are contacted by carriers.'' However, the 
Commission at that time declined to require verification of long 
distance carrier changes in instances when a customer contacts a LEC 
directly to effect the change. The Commission noted that, under those 
circumstances, the LEC is not providing interexchange service to the 
subscriber.
    3. In the Reconsideration Order, however, we recognized that, since 
the adoption of the Second Report and Order, ``many LECs have become 
(or plan to become) long distance service providers.'' We stated that, 
given the proliferation of customers that are now or may soon be served 
by LECs that also provide interexchange services, it was necessary to 
require verification of long distance carrier change requests that 
occur when a customer initiates a call to a LEC. The Commission stated 
that such verification was necessary in order to deter slamming and as 
such furthered the goals of section 258.

II. Discussion

    4. BellSouth, Qwest, SBC Telecommunications, Inc. and Verizon 
(``Joint LECs'') seek clarification that the Commission, in the 
Reconsideration Order, ``merely intended to confirm that customer calls 
to the LEC to make a carrier change benefiting the LEC or, more 
specifically, its long distance affiliates, must be verified pursuant 
to existing Commission verification rules.'' The Joint LECs ask the 
Commission to clarify that the verification rules do not apply in 
situations when a subscriber asks a LEC to effect a change to their 
presubscribed carrier, and the new carrier is neither the LEC itself 
nor an affiliate of the LEC.
    5. As noted previously, in the Second Report and Order, the 
Commission initially excluded from the verification rules requests for 
long distance carrier changes by customers that contact LECs directly, 
because ``the LEC is not providing interexchange service to [the] 
subscriber.'' However, in the Reconsideration Order, we stated that 
``[d]ue to the changes in the competitive landscape that have come to 
fruition since the adoption of the Second Report and Order, and based 
on our experiences therewith, we now find it necessary, as with other 
in-bound carrier change calls, to require verification of carrier 
change requests that occur when a customer initiates a call to a LEC.'' 
We clarify here that such verification by a LEC is required only when 
the carrier change involves the LEC or an affiliate of the LEC. In-
bound customer requests to change long distance carriers, made directly 
to a LEC, remain exempted in cases where the LEC or its long distance 
affiliate is not the subject of the long distance carrier change. We 
agree with the Joint LECs that the Reconsideration Order requires 
verifications of carrier changes involving the LEC or its affiliates. 
This is consistent with out statement in the Second Report and Order 
that our decision to apply the verification rules to certain inbound 
calls was especially necessary ``as carriers begin combining services 
to market to consumers, such as intraLATA and interLATA toll 
services.''

III. Ordering Clauses

    6. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 258 and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 258 and 
303(r), this Order is adopted, and is effective as of its release on 
May 23, 2003.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

    Telephone.


[[Page 40185]]


Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-16845 Filed 7-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P