___________________Federal Communications Commission___________DA 01-1890
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
) 
MCI WorldCom, Inc. ) 1C Nos. 01-S42577
) 01-S48406
Complaints Regarding ) 01-S52085 
Unauthorized Change of ) 01-S52096 
Subscriber's Telecommunications Carrier ) 01-S53883
) 01-S53892
) 01-S53994
ORDER 
Adopted: August 9,2001 Released: August 10,2001
By the Chief, Consumer Information Network Division, Consumer Information Bureau:
1. In this Order, we consider seven complaints' alleging that MCI WorldCom, Inc. 
(WorldCom) changed Complainants' telecommunications service providers without obtaining 
authorization and verification from Complainants in violation of the Commission's rules.2 We 
conclude that WorldCom has responded fully to the complaints and has taken appropriate action 
to resolve the complaints.
2. In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in which it 
adopted rules to implement section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended 
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).3 Section 258 prohibits the practice of
See Appendix A.
2 See 47 C.F.R. §§64.1100-64.1190.
3 47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); 
Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 
94-129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Red 1508 (1998) 
(Section 258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order 
on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Red 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 
27, 2000); Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Red 15996 (2000), Errata, DA 
No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 
2001); reconsideration pending. Prior to the adoption of section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to 
address the slamming problem. See, e.g., Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' 
Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Red 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 
FCC Red 856 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 
FCC Red 1038 (1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC Red 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture 
Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 
102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).
15172
Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1890
"slamming," the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of 
a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service.4 In the Section 258 Order, the 
Commission adopted aggressive new rules designed to take the profit out of slamming, 
broadened the scope of the slamming rules to encompass all carriers, and modified its existing 
requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes. The rules 
require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier 
change may occur.5 Pursuant to section 258, carriers are absolutely barred from changing a 
customer's preferred local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the 
Commission's verification procedures.' Specifically, a carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's 
written or electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of section 
64.1130 authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number 
provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an 
independent third party to verify the subscriber's order.7
3. The Commission also has adopted liability rules. These rules require the carrier 
to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not paid his or her bill. In that context, if the 
subscriber has not already paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the subscriber is absolved of 
liability for charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier for service provided during the first 30 
days after the unauthorized change.8 Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized 
carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges 
to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of 
all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier.9
4. We received Complainants' complaints alleging that Complainants' 
telecommunications service providers had been changed to WorldCom without Complainants' 
authorization. 10 Pursuant to section 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules," we notified WorldCom of 
the complaints and WorldCom responded. 12 WorldCom states in its responses that it has fully
* 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
5 See 47 C.F.R. §64.1120.
6 47 U.S.C. § 258(a).
7 See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). Section 64.1130 details the requirements for letter of agency form 
and content for written or electronically signed authorizations. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.
8 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160. Any charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier on the 
subscriber for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to the authorized carrier at 
the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Id.
9 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1170. 
See Appendix A.
47 C.F.R. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints filed pursuant to section 258 
of the Act); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150 (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier).
See Appendix A.
15173
Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1890
absolved Complainants of all charges assessed by WorldCom in a manner consistent with the 
Commission's liability rules.13 Based on the information before us, we therefore find that the 
complaints referenced herein have been resolved. 14
5. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 258 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 
of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaints15 against WorldCom 
ARE RESOLVED.
6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Jack L. Forsythe, Chief
Consumer Information Network Division
Consumer Information Bureau
13 See 47 C.F.R. §64.1160.
If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of their complaint, Complainant may file a 
formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to section 1.721 of Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.721. Such 
filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of Complainant's informal complaint so long as the formal 
complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is mailed or delivered electronically to Complainant. 
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.
See Appendix A.
15174
Federal Communications Commission DA 01-1890
APPENDIX A
INFORMAL
COMPLAINT
NUMBER
NAME OF 
COMPLAINANT
DATE OF 
COMPLAINT
DATE OF 
CARRIER 
RESPONSE
1C 01-S42577
1C 01-S48406 
1C 01-S52085 
IC01-S52096
IC01-S53883 
1C 01-S53892 
1C 01-S53994
Saddle River Board of 
Education
Beata Witych 
Sunburst Electronics
Environmental 
Consulting & 
Investigation
Jessie Tumey 
Trevor K. Davis 
First Baptist Church
February 6, 2001
April 13, 2001 
April 16, 2001 
May 8, 2001
May 22, 2001 
May 23, 2001 
May 11,2001
March 26, 2001
May 29, 2001 
June 26, 2001 
June 26, 2001
July 16,2001 
July 16,2001 
July 16,2001
15175