Under these revised rules, states have the option of processing slamming complaints, and numerous states have opted to do so. On March 14, 2002, the FCC initiated a notice of proposed rulemaking to examine primary interexchange (long distance) carrier (PIC) change charges, and in a February 10, 2005 action modified the rate structure that was set in 1984. This unauthorized change can occur for several reasons, ranging from computer or human error to unscrupulous or illegal marketing practices. Regardless of the reason, this unauthorized switching, known as "slamming," has a negative impact on both the consumers and suppliers of telecommunications services. Despite existing regulations to prevent such practices and the overall condemnation of such activities, slamming continues to occur with significant frequency. According to data released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), slamming continues to be a major consumer concern, with 36,220 inquiries and 1,932 complaints filed in 2005. The FCC's slamming team, which is part of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, in 2004 resolved approximately 3,500 slamming complaints involving over 300 telephone carriers, resulting in consumer refunds totaling $800,000. The potential for slamming is expected to increase as competition in the provision of intrastate long distance and local telecommunications services becomes more widespread. A significant level of consumer complaints, coupled with the potential for further abuses in an increasingly competitive marketplace, has prompted action to examine and strengthen deterrents to this practice. These include permitting the use of Internet LOAs in compliance with provisions contained in the E-Sign Act ( P.L. Some of the major conclusions reached by the GAO, based on their three-month investigation into slamming practices and regulation, are as follows:
"Neither the FCC, the states, nor the telecommunications industry, have been effective in protecting the consumer from telephone slamming; Information provided by all long distance carriers in compliance with FCC-required tariff filing procedures, is not reviewed and is no deterrent to a slammer; Some states have taken significant action to protect consumers from slamming, but others have taken little action or have no antislamming regulations; The industry approach [to combat slamming] appears to be largely market-driven rather than consumer-oriented; Consumers and the industry itself are becoming increasingly vulnerable as targets for large scale fraud; Given [the present] environment, unscrupulous long-distance providers slam consumers, often with virtual impunity; and The most effective action that consumers can take to eliminate the chance of intentional slamming is to have their local exchange carrier freeze their choice of long distance providers." Whether the FCC's strengthened slamming rules and subsequent enforcement actions will be a sufficient deterrent to stop the practice of slamming, and negate congressional interest to enact legislation remains unclear. The statement also advocated uniformity in state and federal slamming requirements, to lessen consumer confusion, and called for the levying of fines, but solely in cases where it has be proven that the carrier "has engaged in willful and intentional slamming...."

		Issues

Although virtually no one supports the practice of intentional slamming, some concerns have been expressed over the approaches being taken to curb this practice. One concern has focused on the necessity for, or concern over specific provisions contained in, legislative proposals. Two other concerns addressed in legislation have also generated controversy: the implementation of primary interexchange carrier (PIC) freeze programs; and the methodology used by the FCC to develop slamming statistics. Legislation in the 105th Congress

H.R.
Changing a consumer's telephone service provider without his/her knowledge or consent is known as "slamming." This unauthorized change can occur for several reasons ranging from computer or human error to unscrupulous or illegal marketing practices. Regardless of the reason, slamming has a negative impact on both consumers and suppliers of telecommunications services. Despite existing regulations to prevent such practices and the overall condemnation of such activities, slamming continues to be a consumer concern. According to data released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2005, 1,932 slamming complaints were filed. In 2004 the FCC Consumer Affairs Bureau resolved about 3,500 consumer complaints involving over 300 telephone carriers. The issue of slamming is expected to continue as competition in the provision of intrastate long distance and local telecommunications services becomes more widespread.
A significant level of consumer complaints, coupled with the potential for further abuses in an increasingly competitive marketplace, have prompted action to examine and strengthen deterrents to this practice. The FCC has been actively enforcing existing rules and continues to address outstanding slamming issues. The FCC, in a series of rulemakings, adopted rules that strengthen deterrents to slamming in compliance with provisions contained in the 1996 Telecommunications Act (P.L. 104-104). All of these rules are now in effect. Under these revised rules, states are given the option of processing slamming complaints, and numerous states have chosen to do so. The telecommunications industry has condemned intentional slamming and is also taking steps to eliminate the practice.
Following enactment of P.L. 104-104 and during the FCC's promulgation of rules concerning slamming, Congress considered further legislative action. Both the House and Senate passed bills in the 105th Congress, but did not complete action. Further legislation was introduced in the 106th Congress. Since then, as FCC and state enforcement against slamming has continued, Congress has followed the issue, but not seen the introduction of new legislative initiatives.
Although no one supports the practice of intentional slamming, some concerns have been expressed over the approaches being taken to curb this practice. One concern has focused on the necessity for, or specific provisions contained in, legislative measures, with the implementation of primary interexchange (long distance) carrier (PIC) freeze program among the most contentious. The FCC, on March 14, 2002, adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking to examine the charges imposed by local exchange carriers for PIC changes and in a February 10, 2005 action, modified the rate structure that was set in 1984. Another concern relevant to the slamming debate, that is the methodology used by the FCC to develop slamming statistics, also generated controversy. Whether FCC-adopted slamming rules will be a sufficient deterrent to stop the practice of slamming, and negate congressional interest to enact legislation, remains to be seen.