Proposed Rule2025-16089
Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges: Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission seeks comment on whether the current slamming and truth-in-billing rules remain necessary today to protect consumers. The Commission proposes changes to modernize and simplify these rules to reflect the evolution of the telecommunications marketplace, retain core consumer protections against unauthorized carriers switches and charges, and reduce regulatory burdens. The Commission seeks comment on whether the slamming rules remain necessary, and if such rules are necessary, the document proposes to modernize and streamline the current rules consistent with the statutory requirements of section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). The Commission seeks comment on whether the truth-in-billing rules remain necessary and if such rules are necessary, the Commission seeks comment on streamlining them.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 161 (Friday, August 22, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 161 (Friday, August 22, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41016-41022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-16089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket No. 17-169, CC Docket No. 98-170; FCC 25-41; FR ID 308892]
Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and
Related Unauthorized Charges: Truth-in-Billing and Billing Format
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
seeks comment on whether the current slamming and truth-in-billing
rules remain necessary today to protect consumers. The Commission
proposes changes to modernize and simplify these rules to reflect the
evolution of the telecommunications marketplace, retain core consumer
protections against unauthorized carriers switches and charges, and
reduce regulatory burdens. The Commission seeks comment on whether the
slamming rules remain necessary, and if such rules are necessary, the
document proposes to modernize and streamline the current rules
consistent with the statutory requirements of section 258 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). The Commission seeks
comment on whether the truth-in-billing rules remain necessary and if
such rules are necessary, the Commission seeks comment on streamlining
them.
DATES: Comments are due on or before September 22, 2025 and reply
comments are due on or before October 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-169
and CC Docket No. 98-170, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial courier, or by U.S. Postal
Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent
to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5e3e6e6909591e5c3c6c68bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcfaffff898c88fcdadfdf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mika Savir of the Consumer Policy
Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dd0f4f6fcb3cefcebf4efddfbfefeb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8b5919399d6ab998e918ab89e9b9bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-0384.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in CG Docket No. 17-169 and CC Docket
No. 98-170; FCC 25-41, adopted on July 24, 2025 and released on July
25, 2025. The full text of this document is available online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-41A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-41A1.pdf</a>.
This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR
1.1200 et seq. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded
that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of
the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the
subjects discussed. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other
[[Page 41017]]
rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-
but-disclose proceedings are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document may contain proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how to
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
1. In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether
slamming, billing comprehension, and cramming are still such a consumer
problem that the Commission should keep the current slamming and truth-
in-billing rules. If so, the Commission proposes and seeks comment on
modernizing and simplifying the rules while preserving the core
consumer protections. The Commission proposes to adopt a unified
approach to the slamming and billing rules to favor rules that are
clear, enforceable, easy-to-understand and implement, and that do not
unnecessarily impede innovation. The existing slamming and billing
rules may be outdated due to changes in the telephone service market or
technology more generally.
2. The Commission promulgated the slamming rules decades ago when
consumers frequently had separate local and interexchange carriers and
when slamming was a significant consumer issue. Slamming no longer
appears to be a consumer problem, yet the current rules prescribe
detailed methods of proving consumer consent to a switch. Are the
consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to
justify the rules? Can the Commission eliminate the slamming rules and
still enforce section 258's requirement that carriers ``submit or
execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone
exchange service or telephone toll service . . . in accordance with
such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.''
3. The Commission promulgated the truth-in-billing rules more than
a quarter century ago, at a time when confusion about bills and the
possibility of third-party scam charges were much more prominent, along
with the slamming that the rules made easier to detect. Are the
consumer harms that gave rise to the rules still enough of a problem to
justify bill regulation? Are consumers protected in other ways that
suggest they no longer need federal rules, or at least Commission
rules, to protect them? What are the harms of continuing to keep the
rules in terms of compliance costs and to innovation in billing and
pricing?
4. If the slamming and truth-in-billing rules remain necessary, the
Commission seeks comment on proposals to modernize and streamline the
rules in order to protect consumers, promote innovation and
competition, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs or regulatory burdens
on carriers. In addition to the rule language itself, the Commission
proposes to consolidate both subjects into a single rule section. Under
this proposal, the Commission would consolidate the rules in a single
subpart that is titled ``Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Charges
and Provider Switches.'' Would this make compliance easier? Would it
help consumers to more easily locate and understand the rules' related
protections?
5. Does the Commission's proposed consolidation promote the goal of
rules that are clear, enforceable, easy-to-understand and implement,
and that do not unnecessarily impede innovation that benefits
consumers? Are there other ways the Commission might reorganize the
rules to serve the same goals? Are there other rules that could be
consolidated into this subsection to further promote these principles?
Would a consolidated and streamlined approach better reflect both
current market offerings and the way consumers receive communications
services? Are there disparate compliance burdens between large and
small carriers that necessitate additional rules changes?
6. Slamming. If slamming rules are retained, the Commission
proposes to modernize and streamline the current rules consistent with
the statutory requirements of section 258 of the Communications Act.
The Commission proposes to replace the prescriptive rules for verifying
consumer switches with a simple requirement that would ensure consumers
authorize carrier switches, but also give providers flexibility in how
they demonstrate that authorization. The Commission proposes to
eliminate the rules related to Third Party Verification, Letters of
Agency, an electronic authorization, and state-enacted verification
procedures applicable to intrastate service. The Commission also
proposes to eliminate the requirement that providers ensure consumers
can stop, or freeze, any attempt to switch their provider. The
Commission proposes this because slamming appears to be a waning
consumer issue and thus the need for detailed authorization rules no
longer appears necessary.
7. In addition, the Commission proposes to delete ``Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, for resolution of the complaint'' from
Sec. 64.1150(b). This language is not necessary because informal
complaints are filed with the Commission, generally through its
website, and, although the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
traditionally processes such complaints, complaints could be processed
elsewhere in the Commission.
8. The Commission also proposes to delete sections 47 CFR
64.1150(e) and 64.1160(e) and replace those sections with a new section
47 CFR 64.1110(c). These two sections consist of identical ``Election
of forum'' language, and the Commission proposes to replace the two
subsections with one subsection that contains the same language. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
9. The Commission proposes a streamlined rule for proving consent
for a carrier change. Specifically, a new rule that states:
No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change
on the behalf of a subscriber in the subscriber's selection of a
provider of telecommunications service except in accordance with
carrier procedures reasonably designed to obtain verification of the
consent of the subscriber. No telecommunications carrier may engage
in any material misrepresentation to obtain a subscriber's consent
to change a provider of telecommunications service. In the event of
a dispute, the provider must prove with clear and convincing
evidence that it followed its procedures to verify that the switch
was authorized and that the provider did not engage in any material
misrepresentation to obtain such consent. Nothing in this section
shall preclude any state commission from enforcing these procedures
with respect to intrastate services.
10. In sum, the Commission proposes to replace 47 CFR 64.1120's
five subsections and Sec. 64.1130 with a single paragraph that
prohibits a carrier from submitting or executing a provider change
without proper authorization and states the clear and convincing strict
evidentiary standard providers must meet, while maintaining the
important requirement for consumer
[[Page 41018]]
authorization and the prohibition against misrepresentation.
11. Does the Commission's proposal achieve the goals of modernizing
the rules while preserving consumer protection against unauthorized
switches? Commenters opposing the proposed elimination of the
verification rules should explain how such rules remain relevant and
useful. Does the misrepresentation prohibition offer sufficient
protection for consumers so that the comprehensive verification rules
are unnecessary? Do the current rules deter consumers who continue to
subscribe to separate local and long distance landline service from
switching from one preferred carrier to another? Would the proposed
rule curtail current marketplace practices that benefit consumers?
12. Truth-in-Billing. The Commission stated that if the billing
rules remain necessary, the rules should be modernized and simplified.
The Commission designed the rules to help consumers understand their
bills and to deter slamming and cramming. These consumer harms appear
to no longer be a significant consumer issue, yet the rules' complexity
may inhibit innovative billing structures and impose unnecessary
regulatory burdens.
13. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirements that
bills contain a separate section for third party charges, that bills
contain specific contact information, and that providers offering
subscribers the option to block third-party charges must notify
subscribers of this option and prominently disclose that to consumers
on each telephone bill and at the point-of-sale and on carrier
websites. The Commission also proposes to eliminate the ``purpose''
section of the rules as unnecessary. The Commission further proposes to
eliminate the requirements in Sec. 64.2401(a)(2) and (c). The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
14. The Commission believes that there is no longer a need to
maintain third-party billing rules that may stifle innovation and
prevent carriers from communicating information in ways that best meet
consumer expectations. The Commission seeks comment on this view, along
with the burdens that maintaining these rules would impose on carriers.
15. The Commission proposes to revise the rules that prescribe
several ways consumers can contact carriers to ask questions about
billing. This section includes requirements to prominently display a
toll-free telephone number on each paper bill and to provide a physical
address upon request by a consumer. The Commission believes much of
consumer contact with carriers has evolved away from the use of toll-
free numbers and physical mail, making this rule unnecessary. Moreover,
to the extent there remains consumer demand for toll-free numbers,
providers are free to include them in bills or other locations, such as
on their websites. The Commission seeks comment on this view, including
the burdens on providers of keeping these rules.
16. The Commission proposes to retain the core of the billing rules
and to streamline them. Specifically, the Commission proposes to
simplify the requirements to specify that telephone bills must be
clearly organized and contain clear and conspicuous disclosure of any
information that the subscriber may need to make inquiries about, or
contest, charges on the bill. The bill must also clearly and
conspicuously identify any change in service provider, including
identification of charges from any new service provider, and the name
of the service provider associated with each charge and a brief, clear,
non-misleading, plain language description of the service or services
rendered. The Commission proposes to retain the existing definition of
``clear and conspicuous'' as notice that would be apparent to the
reasonable consumer. The Commission also proposes to retain the
prohibition against unauthorized charges.
17. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. Would the
proposed changes ensure that consumers receive the information they
need to understand their bills and protect them from bogus charges?
Would the proposed rules give carriers sufficient flexibility in their
billing practices to better serve customers, including people with
disabilities? Would they give service providers sufficient flexibility
in their billing practices to better serve customers? Do the
Commission's current rules deter providers from adopting improvements
to billing systems for fear that such improvements will not meet
requirements of the billing rules? The emergence of Artificial
Intelligence (AI)-driven fraud poses threats to consumers in different
arenas. Companies across a variety of industries are also increasingly
using AI to enhance and automate business practices. How should the
emergence of AI inform any changes the Commission adopts for the
billing rules? Is there a risk that billing problems, including
cramming, will reemerge if the Commission streamlines the rules as
proposed? Are there other changes the Commission should consider
adopting, either in addition to or instead of this proposal? The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
18. Does the existing definition of ``clear and conspicuous''
provide sufficient clarity for consumers and providers? Alternatively,
should the Commission adopt the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's)
definition of clear and conspicuous? The FTC defines clear and
conspicuous to be a notice that ``is reasonably understandable and
designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the
information in the notice.'' The FTC definition also includes
subsections defining ``reasonably understandable'' and ``designed to
call attention,'' and explains ``notices on websites or within-
application messaging.'' Are there other parts of the FTC rule that the
Commission should consider?
19. Costs and Benefits. In this document the Commission proposes to
consolidate and simplify the slamming and billing rules and remove
detailed requirements that may no longer be necessary due to changes in
the telecommunications industry and consumer preferences. If the
Commission were to adopt these proposals, the rules' essential consumer
protections would remain. Further, providers would be granted more
flexibility to innovate their processes should they decide to do so.
20. The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed changes
would impose any additional cost to consumers, particularly because the
proposed rules retain the important prohibitions against
misrepresentation and unauthorized charges. The Commission has not
received consumer complaints alleging violations of the slamming and
billing rules recently, and detailed requirements may no longer be
necessary to protect consumers and therefore, it seems unlikely that
streamlining these rules as proposed would harm consumers. Further, the
Commission does not expect these proposals to increase carrier costs.
Carrier practices that satisfy the current rules would comply with the
proposed changes. That is, a provider would not need to revise its
bills or processes to comply with the proposed changes.
21. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that the
costs associated with the proposed rules are negligible and that the
benefits associated with the proposed rules, which would consist of
fewer requirements for carriers to follow when providing information on
bills and when implementing a carrier change, outweigh the costs. The
Commission seeks comment on this tentative
[[Page 41019]]
conclusion and more generally on the benefits and costs associated with
adopting the proposals set forth in this NPRM. Comments should be
accompanied by specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and
benefits.
22. Legal Authority. The Commission believes that it has the legal
authority to make the changes discussed in this document under sections
201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act. The Commission has based its
slamming, cramming, and billing rules on these statutory provisions in
the past. Section 201(b) prohibits telecommunications carriers from
engaging in unjust and unreasonable practices, which the Commission has
found includes both deceptive marketing practices as well as deceptive
billing practices. Section 258 prohibits carriers executing a switch
unless they do so ``in accordance with such verification procedures as
the Commission shall prescribe.''
23. The Commission tentatively concludes, for example, that the
proposed rule changes, specifically, the proposed revisions to Sec.
64.1120, would establish ``verification procedures'' consistent with
the authority specified in section 258 of the Communications Act. Do
commenters agree? Are there other sources of authority on which the
Commission could rely to adopt any of the rules discussed in this
document?
24. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) assessing the
possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
25. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In the NPRM,
the Commission proposes to streamline the slamming and Truth-in-Billing
(billing) rules. More specifically, the Commission proposes to reduce
some of the requirements for carrier change verification under the
slamming rules, while keeping the essential parts of these rules for
consumer protection. The streamlining the Commission proposes is
appropriate due to evolving technology and consumers' migration away
from traditional local and long distance service and increased adoption
of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service or Commercial Mobile
Radio Service (CMRS) as their all-distance sole telephone service. The
Commission proposes streamlining the billing rules to eliminate
procedures that are no longer needed. Existing rules required providers
ensure that consumers' telephone bills are clearly organized, display
the name of each service provider, and contain descriptions of charges
that are brief, clear, and non-misleading. Through this proposed
streamlining, the Commission seeks continued protection of consumers
from unauthorized carrier changes and charges while ensuring the
information on their bills is clear so that they can make informed
choices.
26. Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to
sections 1-4, 201(b) and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201(b), 258.
27. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if
adopted. The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having
the same meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small
organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition,
the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small
business concern'' under the Small Business Act.'' A ``small business
concern'' is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
28. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be
directly affected by its actions. First, while there are industry
specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, in general, a small business is an
independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of
small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, ``small
organizations'' are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently
owned and operated and not dominant their field. While the Commission
does not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that
criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees.
Finally, ``small governmental jurisdictions'' are defined as cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts with populations of less than 50,000. Based on the 2022 U.S.
Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least
48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population
of less than 50,000.
29. Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
30. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of
[[Page 41020]]
December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers that reported they were
incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the
Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange
carriers can be considered small entities.
31. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services.
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local
exchange service providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive local
service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that
3,230 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be
considered small entities.
32. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the
SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
33. Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Local
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 207
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
34. Toll Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Toll
Resellers. Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a
SBA small business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 457
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of toll
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 438
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
35. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small businesses specifically applicable to
Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not
fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service
providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers,
or toll resellers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 90 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of other toll services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 87 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
36. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally,
[[Page 41021]]
based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring
Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported
they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these
providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
37. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications
service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor
collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be
classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
38. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
39. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline
carriers or fixed local service providers.
40. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
41. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. The NPRM includes proposals
to streamline the Commission's rules. The proposals do not impose any
additional burdens on small entities; instead, the proposed rules, if
adopted, would permit small entities more flexibility and fewer
requirements when effecting a carrier change or billing a customer for
telecommunications services.
42. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA directs
agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to
the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on
small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such
as: ``(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part
thereof, for such small entities.''
43. In the document, the Commission is proposing to reduce
regulatory burdens on all carriers, including small entities. The
Commission is proposing to streamline the slamming and billing rules
for all carriers; however, providers would still be in compliance with
the rules if they followed the existing rules instead of the proposed
streamlined rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are
additional regulatory reforms that are needed to address disparate
compliance burdens between large and small carriers with respect to the
existing rules.
44. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules.
None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 to read as
follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The Authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 41022]]
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub.
L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
0
2. Amend the title by revising Subpart K to read as follows:
Subpart K--Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Charges and
Provider Switches
* * * * *
Sec. 64.1110 State notification of election to administer FCC rules.
0
3. Amend Sec. 64.1110 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
(c) The Federal Communications Commission will not adjudicate a
complaint filed pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.719 or Sec. Sec. 1.720-1.740
of this chapter, involving an alleged unauthorized change, as defined
by Sec. 64.1100(e), while a complaint based on the same set of facts
is pending with a state commission.
Sec. 64.1120 Verification of orders for telecommunications service.
0
4. Revise Sec. 64.1120 to read as follows:
(a) No telecommunications carrier shall submit or execute a change
on the behalf of a subscriber in the subscriber's selection of a
provider of telecommunications service except in accordance with
carrier procedures reasonably designed to obtain verification of the
consent of the subscriber. No telecommunications carrier may engage in
any material misrepresentation to obtain a subscriber's consent to
change a provider of telecommunications service. In the event of a
dispute, the provider must prove with clear and convincing evidence
that it followed its procedures to verify that the switch was
authorized and that the provider did not engage in any material
misrepresentation to obtain such consent. Nothing in this section shall
preclude any state commission from enforcing these procedures with
respect to intrastate services.
0
5. Remove Sec. 64.1130.
* * * * *
Sec. 64.1150 Procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in
preferred carrier.
0
6. Amend Sec. 64.1150 by revising paragraphs (b) and (d), and removing
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(b) Referral of complaint. Any carrier, executing, authorized, or
allegedly unauthorized, that is informed by a subscriber or an
executing carrier of an unauthorized carrier change shall direct that
subscriber either to the state commission or, where the state
commission has not opted to administer these rules, to the Federal
Communications Commission. Carriers shall also inform the subscriber
that he or she may contact and seek resolution from the alleged
unauthorized carrier and, in addition, may contact the authorized
carrier.
(c) * * *
(d) Proof of verification. Not more than 30 days after notification
of the complaint, or such lesser time as is required by the state
commission if a matter is brought before a state commission, the
alleged unauthorized carrier shall provide to the relevant government
agency a copy of any valid proof of verification of the carrier change.
This proof of verification must contain clear and convincing evidence
of a valid authorized carrier change, as that term is defined in
Sec. Sec. 64.1120. The relevant governmental agency will determine
whether an unauthorized change, as defined by Sec. 64.1100(e), has
occurred using such proof and any evidence supplied by the subscriber.
Failure by the carrier to respond or provide proof of verification will
be presumed to be clear and convincing evidence of a violation.
(e) Remove paragraph (e).
Sec. 64.1160 Absolution procedures where the subscriber has not paid
charges.
0
7. In Sec. 64.1160 remove paragraph (e), redesignate paragraphs (f)
and (g) as paragraphs (e) and (f).
Sec. 64.1190 Preferred carrier freezes.
0
8. Amend Sec. 64.1190 by revising (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and adding
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
(a) These rules shall apply to all telecommunications common
carriers and to all bills containing charges for intrastate or
interstate services, except as follows: Sec. 64.1190(c)(2) and (3)
shall not apply to providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Service as
defined in Sec. 20.9 of this chapter, or to other providers of mobile
service as defined in Sec. 20.7 of this chapter, unless the Commission
determines otherwise in a further rulemaking.
(b) Preemptive effect of rules. The requirements in this subpart
are not intended to preempt the adoption or enforcement of consistent
truth-in-billing requirements by the states.
(c) Telephone Billing Requirements.
(1) Telephone bills shall be clearly organized and must contain
clear and conspicuous disclosure of any information that the subscriber
may need to make inquiries about, or contest, charges on the bill.
(2) Telephone bills must clearly and conspicuously identify any
change in service provider, including identification of charges from
any new service provider.
(3) Charges contained on telephone bills must be accompanied by a
brief, clear, non-misleading, plain language description of the service
or services rendered, and the name of the service provider associated
with each charge. The description must be sufficiently clear in
presentation and specific enough in content so that customers can
accurately assess that the services for which they are billed
correspond to those that they have requested and received, and that the
costs assessed for those services conform to their understanding of the
price charged.
(d) Definition of clear and conspicuous. For purposes of this
section, ``clear and conspicuous'' means notice that would be apparent
to the reasonable consumer.
(e) Prohibition against unauthorized charges. Carriers shall not
place or cause to be placed on any telephone bill charges that have not
been authorized by the subscriber.
0
9. Remove Sec. 64.2400.
0
10. Remove Sec. 64.2401.
[FR Doc. 2025-16089 Filed 8-21-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 22, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.