---
title: FCC Bureau Strictly Enforcing TPV Requirements
date: 2011-02-22T15:30:04-05:00
author: Import Bot
canonical_url: "https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/fcc-bureau-strictly-enforcing-tpv-requirements"
section: Blog Posts
---
# FCC Bureau Strictly Enforcing TPV Requirements

 February 22, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since 1998, the FCC has adjudicated individual consumer claims that the consumer’s telecommunications services were switched without authorization (aka ​“slamming”). These adjudications often are released by the dozens and use a consistent format and language. The most recent batch of such releases confirms that, when it comes to orders confirmed by third party verification (“TPV”), the Bureau employs a literal interpretation of the content requirements for verification.

Continue reading to see examples of the Bureau’s literal interpretations.

Among the findings made by the Bureau in recent orders are:

**1. The TPV must identify each telephone number ​“to be switched.”** In [America Net](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/02/America-Net-slamming-complaint-order.pdf), ​“the verifier recited a list of telephone numbers presumably associated with the business, but did not specifically elicit the ​‘telephone numbers to be switched.’ ”

**2. The TPV must verify the subscriber’s ​“intent to change” his preferred carrier.** In [Business Network](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/02/Business-Network-slamming-complaint-order.pdf), the TPV stated that the purpose of the call was to ​“verify and confirm your account information” but did not state that the verification was to change the carrier. Similarly, in [Silv Communications](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/02/Silv-slamming-complaint-order.pdf), the verifier stated the the TPV was for ​“quality control and accurate data entry” but did not explicitly state that its purpose was to authorize a carrier change.

**3. The TPV must confirm authorization to ​“make a carrier change.”** In [Teledias Communications](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/blogs/comm-law-monitor/2011/02/Teledias-slamming-complaint-order.pdf), the TPV asked whether the subscriber was authorized ​“to make this selection” and the FCC found the verification lacking because it did not ask the person if they were making a change in providers.

 

 **Tags:** [enforcement](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/enforcement), [long distance](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/long-distance), [slamming](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/slamming), [third party verification](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/third-party-verification), [TPV](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/tags/tpv)

 

 - Share this entry 
    - 
    - 
    - 
    -
- [  View entry pdf ](https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.kelleydrye.com/content/uploads/pdf-snapshots/fcc-bureau-strictly-enforcing-tpv-requirements-20230914233909.pdf)
 
 

### Search Blog

  

### Subscribe

  

### Explore Topics

- [Enforcement, Investigations & Audits](https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/commlaw-monitor/enforcement-investigations-audits)
 
 

### Related Services

- [Communications](https://www.kelleydrye.com/industries/communications)