Lasar Letter on the Federal Communications Commission    
 


Sat, May 10, 11:41am



Navigation


benton news


Ars Technica


freepress news


progress and freedom foundation news


 

FCC slams 13 telcos for slamming - exonerates three

by Matthew Lasar  Aug 28 2006 - 11:00pm     

The Federal Communications Commission has found sixteen phone companies guilty as charged for "slamming"—switching a customers' phone service without getting their permission first. The culprits include NECC Telecom, CSP Telecom, Cavalier Telephone, QWest, Netone International, Excel, Discounted Telecommunications, Business Network Long Distance, and Startec Global.

The commission also dismissed slamming complaints against Lotus Communications, Talk America, and Buzz Telecom.

Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, hundreds of new phone companies began competing for customers, or, in many instances, stealing them by using access to Local Exchange Carrier databases.

In response to thousands of customer complaints, in 1998 the FCC established strict rules forbidding phone services from grabbing customers without their permission. Punishment for guilty parties include:

  • absolving the customer of all unpaid charges levied by the slammer for the first thirty days of service
  • requiring the slammer to pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier
  • refunding the customer 50% of all charges paid to the unauthorized phone service

FCC records indicate that the commission received 367 complaints about slamming in the first quarter of this year: 160 in January, 99 in February, and 108 in March.


delicious  digg  reddit  magnoliacom  newsvine  furl      technorati  icerocket
ATTEMPTED SLAM BY BUSINESS NETWORK LONG DISTANCE
Charles S. Harding (not verified)  Jan 14 2008 - 12:34pm   

This is what I posted on the Better Business Burearu website for Denver, CO where this company is supposedly located. BBB Case Number 75040788.

"The company claims to be the new billing company for AT&T Long Disntance telephone service due to recent contracts that were signed between AT&T and BNLD. This information has been denied by AT&T Business customer service and the AT&T Business customer service for the state of California. The caller represented himself as an individual employed by BNLD and stated that he was our representative. There was various numbers thrown out regarding a telephone number of our Santa Monica, CA office in which is associated with Verizon telephone and long distance with Qwest. This is were I became suspicious. As the new rates and savings were explained to me I was next transferred to another individual (a woman) that was supposed to verify my information. She stated that I was being recorded and that I was to answer in Yes or No answers and Yes or No answers ONLY! I answered Yes to the first two questions that verified my name, title, and compnay address. The third question asked if I understood that I would be charged a $4.95 per month fee for converting my long distance. I asked the person to repeat that phrase again and stated that there was no mention of a monthly service fee involved to reduce my long distance rates. I was immediately transferred back to the BNLD representative (identified as Customer Service Rep #1405). He explained to me that he had mentioned the service fee and I started asking more questions. Finally the BNLD customer service representative tried to explain some more information to me but I continued to ask more questions. He than placed me on hold and within three seconds I was disconnected. The customer service representative or anyone else from BNLD called back because we were disconnected. I have since contacted AT&T Business Customer Service to report the incident as well as verbally verify that AT&T and BNLD have not partnered, signed contracts, or even conduct business together."

I have been in the computer/telco industry for almost 15+ years and it was interesting when I researched this company's domain name businessnetworklongdistance.com it came up with status of "Renew Client Prohibited". There domain expires in 2009 and registered through GoDaddy.com. Their website is hosted through a company out of Orlando, FL. If you look at their website it is very generic looking with no mission statement. Graphics on the website are very generic looking as well.


CSP Telecom
Alicia Fruin (not verified)  Jan 3 2008 - 8:15am   

Our company has recently been the victim of slamming. We have just received our office phone bill for December and noticed it was $200 more then usual. We have been on a all conclusive long distance plan with AT&T where we pay a flat rate and do not receive any extra long distance charges. Well of course we were confused by our bill and contacted AT&T. After being hung up on 4 times and wasting over and hour and a half on hold we found a very nice man that would help us. We found out that Quest was billing AT&T for our long distance charges. Once we found this out I called Quest and was of course given the run around. I was told that to change our service a third party would have to have called us and gotten our voice recorded. When asked if Quest had that verification available to them prior to billing us they of course said no. They did give me a phone number to ILP Billing. Thank goodness we had a great AT&T rep because after being hung up on yesterday and wasting 30 minutes on hold today I got a rep at ILP Billing and was told AT&T had contacted them yesterday and they have a email in to have our account examined! 3 to 4 days we have to wait to see what is going on. ILP Billing knows nothing of the verification call, they don't even have our name listed on the account so can't confirm that they are billing the correct people. As of right now I am on hold at CSP Telecom who is the company responsible for all this. When speaking with Quest yesterday I learned that the verification call is normally a call with a recorded message that you either have to say yes to or press a button. Our company has the practice of hanging up once we learn it is a recording. If someone actually wanted to talk to us they would call us themselves not send a machine to do it. Please check all bills, personal or business for anythingg that looks abnormal. It never hurts to ask questions, it protects you.


complaining about slamming
Matthew Lasar  Jan 3 2008 - 8:45am   

Alicia:

The Federal Communications Commission has a slamming complaint Web page if you want to take that route. It's at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_slamming.html. You can complain to the FCC or to your respective state public utility commission, or both. The FCC even has a slamming complaint e-mail address: . Good luck with this and let LLFCC know how it works out.

 


 
Recent Posts


User login


Recent comments


Recent blog posts


Syndicate


Techdirt


Blogroll