WPCY9 2 BEJ ZCourier X-#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#3|jAYour Printer) LPT1HPLAS5P.PRS5x  @\;"*TX@HP LaserJet 5L (Your Printer) LPT1HPLAS5P.PRS5X\  P6G;\;"*TPX01ÍÍ X   #Xj\  P6G;߈XP#2=KU<CourierTimes New Roman"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+999999S9S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN##PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""Section 1.2.6.A. of Tariff F.C.C. No. 1, set forth above, was renumbered Section 2.9 of Tariff  xF.C.C. No. 3, and retitled "Cancellation of Service by Customer." Except for a few minor, non x substantive changes to the text of Section 1.2.6.A., new Section 2.9 of Tariff F.C.C. No. 3 is"9,=(=(JJ"  X- x\substantially the same as Section 1.2.6.A. of Tariff F.C.C. No. 1.I( A yOy-ԍxSection 2.9 provides:  ` XxX` ` A Customer may cancel Service by giving written or verbal notice to the  ` cCompany. Such notice should be addressed to the Company's Customer Service  ` &organization at the address specified in Section 2.8.1 of this tariff. The Company  ` requires such notification to protect the Customer from unauthorized account  ` transfer or "slamming." If the Company is not notified accordingly, the  ` Company may reinstate Customer's account by implementation of its automatic  ` provisioning system. The Company will confirm all cancellations within five (5)  ` Fbusiness days. Additionally, in the event that the automatic polling system  ` determines the Customer is no longer receiving Service, the Customer may be  ` reinstated and a written reinstatement notice will be sent to the Customer within five (5) business days.x` I Both sections require the  xjcustomer to notify MRP if the customer plans to change its PIC selection from MRP to another  xIXC. If the customer fails to provide notification, both sections provide that MRP may automatically switch the customer back to MRP.  X-  IV. THE COHOON AND SOWERS COMPLAINTS ă  X_- A.xThe Cohoon Complaint  X1- ` x7.` ` Ms. Patricia Cohoon filed a written complaint with the Commission on June 5,  x1997, alleging that MRP had converted her presubscribed long distance service provider from  X - x<AT&T Communications ("AT&T") to MRP without her authorization. A yOl-ԍxPatricia M. Cohoon, Informal Complaint No. IC9722037 (June 5, 1997) ("Cohoon Complaint"). Ms. Cohoon discovered  xthe switch at the end of April 1997 when she received a letter from AT&T informing her that  xLher long distance service had been changed to MRP. Ms. Cohoon states that on May 1, 1997,  xshe called her local carrier, Ameritech, to complain that her long distance service had been  X -switched without her authorization, and to request that her service be changed back to AT&T.G H A yO-ԍxCohoon Complaint at 1.G  Xy- ` x8.` ` On May 8, 1997, Ms. Cohoon received a postcard in the mail from MRP advising  xher that if she did not respond by mail or phone, she would automatically be switched back to  xxMRP from AT&T. Ms. Cohoon states that she then notified MRP by phone that she did not wish  xto be presubscribed to MRP's service. Nevertheless, when she received her May 1997 phone bill  xfrom Ameritech, Ms. Cohoon discovered that she had been switched back to MRP on May 6,  X- xy1997, two days before she received the MRP postcard. Upon reviewing her bill, she found that  x.several of her long distance calls had been carried by MRP. Ms. Cohoon immediately notified  x=MRP that her long distance service had been switched without her authorization, and that she  X- xwished to return to AT&T. According to Ms. Cohoon, an MRP representative informed her that",=(=(JJS"  xMs. Cohoon "could not change her carrier" for long distance calls; "only they [MRP] can do  X-this.";A {Ob-ԍxId. ;  X- ` Qx9.` ` On August 4, 1997, the Common Carrier Bureau's Consumer Protection Branch  xsent MRP a Notice of Informal Complaint ("Notice") directing MRP to respond within 30 days  x<with specific information regarding the conversion of Ms. Cohoon's presubscribed interexchange  Xv- xcarrier.vZA yO -Ѝx#X\  P6G;qP#Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC9622037 (Aug. 4, 1997). MRP failed to respond to the Notice within 30 days, or to seek an extension of time  x/in which to submit the requested information. On October 9, 1997, over one month after its  xresponse was due, MRP filed with the Commission what appears to be a form letter with case xspecific information, such as the complainant's name, inserted at various points. In its letter,  xxMRP states that it received Ms. Cohoon's taperecorded order and corresponding paperwork from  xan independent sales contractor. MRP further states that an independent mailing company then  xsent Ms. Cohoon a welcome package, a copy of which is attached to MRP's letter. MRP,  xhowever, does not address Ms. Cohoon's allegation that her longdistance service was switched  xback to MRP after she returned to AT&T, her presubscribed interexchange carrier. Nor does  xMRP address Ms. Cohoon's contention that upon learning she had been switched back to MRP,  xshe immediately contacted an MRP representative, who informed her that only MRP could change her longdistance carrier.  XK- B.xThe Sowers Complaint  X- ` x 10.` ` On September 9, 1997, the Commission received a written complaint from Ms.  xCheryl Sowers alleging that MRP had switched her presubscribed long distance service provider  X- xwithout her authorization.A yO-ԍxCheryl Sowers, Informal Complaint No. IC9725377 (Sept. 9, 1997) ("Sowers Complaint"). Specifically, Ms. Sowers explains that on or about May 9, 1997, she  xchanged her presubscribed long distance service provider from MRP to AT&T. Ms. Sowers  xysubsequently discovered that she had been switched back to MRP when she received her July  xLphone bill from GTE Corporation ("GTE"), her local exchange carrier, and noticed charges from  xLMRP. When Ms. Sowers called AT&T to find out why she had been billed for calls carried by  xMRP instead of AT&T, she was told that she had been switched back to MRP on or about May  x16, 1997. Ms. Sowers immediately complained to an MRP representative, who informed her that  x/MRP "could legally switch [her back to MRP] unless [Ms. Sowers] wrote them personally"  X7-indicating her desire to be presubscribed to another interexchange carrier.G7zA yOb#-ԍxSowers Complaint at 1.G  X - ` %x 11.` ` On September 15, 1997, the Common Carrier Bureau's Consumer Protection  xBranch sent MRP a Notice of Informal Complaint ("Notice") directing MRP to respond within  x30 days with specific information regarding the conversion of Ms. Sowers' presubscribed" ,=(=(JJ;"  X- xinterexchange carrier. A yOy-Ѝx#X\  P6G;qP#Notice of Informal Complaint No. IC9725377 (Sept. 15, 1997). On October 16, 1997, MRP filed with the Commission what appears to  xbe a brief form letter with casespecific information, such as the complainant's name, inserted  xat various points. MRP failed to provide any supporting documentation to accompany its letter.  xIn its letter, MRP merely states that it was not notified of Ms. Sowers' decision to cancel her  xzMRP service and change her longdistance carrier to AT&T. MRP's letter, however, fails to  xOaddress Ms. Sowers' allegation that she was then switched back to MRP without her authorization.  _#\   XH- _#\  V. DISCUSSION ă  X - ` x 12.` ` We have evaluated the information submitted in connection with the informal  xcomplaints filed by Ms. Cohoon and Ms. Sowers, and conclude that MRP is apparently liable for  x.forfeiture for willful or repeated violation of Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's rules  xand requirements concerning PIC changes. It appears that on or about April 2, 1997, May 6,  xL1997, and May 16, 1997, MRP submitted PICchange requests to Ameritech and GTE, resulting  xin the unauthorized conversion of Ms. Cohoon's and Ms. Sowers' presubscribed interexchange carrier from AT&T to MRP.  Xb- ` x 13.` ` The statements and information provided by Ms. Cohoon indicate that MRP not  xLonly lacked the requisite authorization to request a PICchange in Ms. Cohoon's long distance  x.service initially, but that MRP also lacked authorization to switch Ms. Cohoon's long distance  xLservice back to MRP in accordance with MRP's automatic switchback tariff provision. As Ms.  x.Cohoon states in her complaint, she discovered the initial switch to MRP when she received a  xzletter from AT&T informing her that her long distance service had been changed to another  xcarrier. After Ms. Cohoon complained about the unauthorized switch and successfully returned  xto AT&T, Ms. Cohoon received a postcard from MRP informing her that if she did not respond  xby mail or phone, she would automatically be switched back to MRP. Even though Ms. Cohoon  xnotified MRP by phone that she did not want MRP's service, she was switched back to MRP  xshortly thereafter. Similarly, in the case of Ms. Sowers' complaint, we find that MRP failed to  x=obtain the requisite authorization prior to switching Ms. Sowers' long distance service back to  xMRP in accordance with its automatic switchback tariff provision, in violation of Section 258 of  xthe Act and the Commission's PICchange rules and orders. As was the case with Ms. Cohoon,  xxthe statements and information provided by Ms. Sowers are persuasive evidence that Ms. Sowers  X -did not authorize MRP to switch her long distance service back to MRP.Q! XA {O"-ԍxSee Sowers Complaint at 1.Q  X- ` x 14.` ` As explained above, Section 258 of the Act bolstered the Commission's existing  xverification procedures by making it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to submit or  x execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or"!!,=(=(JJ "  X- xtelephone toll service, except in accordance with Commissionprescribed verification procedures.D"A yOy-ԍx47 U.S.C.  258.D  xMRP has failed to provide evidence to show that it followed these verification procedures when  xit submitted changes to the complainants' selections of presubscribed interexchange service  xjproviders, as required by Section 258 of the Act. For example, MRP has not demonstrated that  xjit secured an LOA prior to effecting changes in the complainants' presubscribed interexchange  X- xcarriers.r#XA {O-ԍxSee, e.g., PIC Change Order, 7 FCC Rcd at 1045.r Moreover, in the face of the clear language of Section 258, we find particularly  Xv- xtroubling MRP's automatic switchback tariff provision,$ZvA {O -  ԍxSee Section 1.2.6.A., MRP Tariff F.C.C. No. 1; Section 2.9, MRP Tariff F.C.C. No. 3. As noted above,  xMRP renumbered Section 1.2.6.A. of MRP Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 as Section 2.9 of MRP Tariff F.C.C. No. 3 on May 22, 1997, after the date of the automatic switchbacks alleged in the complaints at issue. by which MRP reserves the right  x<unilaterally to switch a customer back to MRP absent direct notification from the customer, rather than complying with the specific verification procedures prescribed by the Commission.  X - ` x15.` ` Further, it appears that MRP apparently knew or should have known that its  x-automatic switchback tariff provision would enable MRP to switch consumers' PICs without their  xauthorization, in violation of Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's PICchange rules and  xorders. Thus, it appears that the unauthorized PIC changes at issue were the result of either  xdeliberate misconduct by MRP or reckless disregard for Congressional decree and the  xLCommission's rules and orders. Under these circumstances, we conclude that MRP's apparent  xactions were in willful or repeated violation of Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's PIC Xy- xxchange rules and orders, and that a forfeiture penalty is appropriate.W%y A {O6-ԍxSee 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B).W We also note that Sections  x1.2.6.A. and 2.9 of MRP's tariffs appear to raise questions of reasonableness under the terms and  XK- xyrequirements of Section 201(b) of the Act,&KA yO-  =ԍx47 U.S.C.  201(b). This section provides in pertinent part that "[a]ll charges, practices, classifications, and regulations for and in connection with ... communication service shall be just and reasonable...." to the extent these tariff provisions enable MRP to  x\engage in the unlawful act of slamming. We invite MRP to respond to these Section 201(b)  xconcerns. After reviewing MRP's response to this NAL, we will determine whether MRP's tariff provisions violate Section 201(b), and, if so, whether further enforcement action is warranted. x  X- ` x16.` ` Section 503(b)(2)(B) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture  x{of up to one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) for each violation, or each day of a  xcontinuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of one million, one hundred thousand dollars  X- x($1,100,000) for a single act or failure to act.'X A yO:%-  >ԍx#X\  P6G;qP#47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(B); 47 C.F.R.  1.80. The Commission recently amended its rules by adding a new  xsubsection to its monetary forfeiture provisions that incorporates the inflation adjustment requirements contained in  xthe Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104134, Sec. 31001, 110 Stat. 1321, __), enacted on April"&&,=(=(&"  {O-26, 1996. See In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules, 12 FCC Rcd 1038 (1997). In exercising this forfeiture authority, the"Z',=(=(JJQ"  xKCommission is required to take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the  x-violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,  X- xability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require."(ZA yO-ԍx#X\  P6G;qP#47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#ѡ For purposes of determining an  x=appropriate forfeiture penalty in this case, we regard the conversion of Ms. Cohoon's and Ms.  xSowers' presubscribed interexchange carriers as two violations. After weighing the circumstances  xsurrounding the violation, we find that MRP is apparently liable for a forfeiture of forty thousand  xdollars ($40,000) for the unauthorized conversion of Ms. Cohoon's presubscribed interexchange  x\carrier and forty thousand dollars ($40,000) for the unauthorized conversion of Ms. Sowers'  xpresubscribed interexchange carrier, resulting in a total forfeiture of eighty thousand dollars  X1- x<($80,000).)$1A {O -  ԍxSee The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to  {O- xIncorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, CI Docket No. 956, Report and Order, FCC 97218 (rel. July 28, 1997)  xM(stating that under the Commission's new guidelines for assessing forfeitures, the base amount for a single "unauthorized conversion of long distance telephone service" is $40,000). MRP will have the opportunity to submit evidence and arguments in response to this  xNAL to show that no forfeiture should be imposed or that some lesser amount should be  X -assessed. * A X-ԍx#X\  P6G;qP#47 U.S.C.#Xj\  P6G;߈XP# #X\  P6G;qP# 503(b)(4)(C); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f)(3).#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#   X -  VI. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X - ` x17.` ` We have evaluated the information submitted in connection with the informal  X- x=complaints filed by Ms. Cohoon and Ms. Sowers, and conclude that on or about April 2, 1997,  xMay 6, 1997, and May 16, 1997, MRP apparently converted or caused a local exchange carrier  xto convert Ms. Cohoon's and Ms. Sowers' presubscribed interexchange carriers without their  xauthorization. We further conclude that MRP thereby apparently willfully or repeatedly violated  xSection 258 of the Act and Commission rules and orders governing primary interexchange carrier  xconversions, and that MRP's conduct warrants a forfeiture in the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000).  X- ` $x18.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 503(b) of Communications  xAct of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  503(b), Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  x  1.80, and the authority delegated in Sections 0.91 and 0.291 of the Commission's rules, 47  xC.F.R.  0.91, 0.291, that Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc. IS HEREBY NOTIFIED of an Apparent  xjLiability for Forfeiture in the amount of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) for willful or repeated  Xe-violation of Section 258 of the Act and the Commission's PICchange rules and orders.+^e A {O%-  Ѝx#X\  P6G;qP#See 47 C.F.R.  64.1100, 64.1150; 1997 FNPRM & Order on Recon., 12 FCC Rcd 10674; LOA Order,  {Og&- x10 FCC Rcd 9560; In-bound Stay Order, 11 FCC Rcd 856; PIC Change Order, 7 FCC Rcd 1038; Allocation Order,  {O1'-101 FCC 2d 911; Waiver Order, 101 FCC 2d 935. "e +,=(=(JJ"Ԍ X- ` ԙx19.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules,  X- xy47 C.F.R.  1.80, that within thirty days of the release of this Notice, Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc.  X- xjSHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture\, A yOK-  Ѝ#X\  P6G;qP#xThe forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order drawn to the order of the Federal  xCommunications Commission. Reference should be made on Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc.'s check or money order  xto "NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0001." Such remittances must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch,  yO-Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box. 73482, Chicago, Illinois 606737482.#Xj\  P6G;߈XP#\ OR SHALL FILE a response showing why the proposed forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced.  _#\   X- ` Q _#\ x20.` ` IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for  xForfeiture SHALL BE SENT by certified mail to Tom Salzano, President, Minimum Rate Pricing, Inc., 300 Broad Acres Drive, P.O. Box 8000, Bloomfield, New Jersey 07003.  X -x` `  hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhA. Richard Metzger, Jr.  X - x` `  hhActing Chief XxX` ` X XXhhCommon Carrier Bureau(#h  Xy- T