circulation share. For the February 2003 survey, the reported results for WAVE-TV with the standard errors added are 4.40 percent share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 12.03 percent. The results for the May 2003 survey, with the standard errors added are 7.39 percent share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 12.88 percent For these latter two survey periods, the net weekly circulation shares fall below the required 25 percent minimum for significantly viewed status when the standard errors are considered. For the share of total viewing statistics, for both periods, the values exceed the 3 percent minimum required when the standard errors are considered. However, the criteria for determining whether a station is significantly viewed requires that both the share of total viewing hours and the net weekly circulation share exceed the criteria provided in Section 76.5(i) of the Commission's rules." Accordingly, we find that the submitted audience surveys are sufficient to show that WAVE-TV no longer attains the viewing levels needed to demonstrate significantly viewed status in the community of Columbia, Kentucky

7. For the community of Horse Cave, Kentucky, we do not believe that WNKY has demonstrated that WAVE-TV is no longer significantly viewed. For the February 2004 survey there are no diaries included and thus no information about viewing for that period. For the May 2003 survey, both statistics appear to exceed the requirements (i.e., a 5.65 percent share of total viewing hours and a net weekly circulation of 50 percent).18 Based on the above, we cannot conclude that WAVE-TV is no longer significantly viewed in Horse Cave, Kentucky.

8. For the above reasons, we find that a partial grant of a waiver of the significantly viewed exception from the network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity rules with regard to the community-specific survey for Columbia, Kentucky, will serve the public interest.

9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that the petition filed by MMK License LLC IS GRANTED for the community of Columbia, Kentucky and IS DENIED for the community of Horse Cave, Kentucky.

10. This action is taken pursuant to authority delegated under Section 0.283 of the Commission's rules.19

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

William H. Johnson

Deputy Chief, Media Bureau

1747 C.F.R. § 76.5(i).

18We note that WNKY indicates that the net weekly circulation share is 50, with no standard error, based on 3 diaries. While this may be a typographical error, it is extremely unlikely that any viewing share would result in no standard error and this reported result is inconsistent with the other reported values for this community.

1947 C.F.R. §0.283.

By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau: 1. In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Complainant' alleging that Main Street Telephone Company (Main Street) changed Complainant's telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission's rules.2 We conclude that Main Street's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we deny Complainant's complaint.

2. In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in which it adopted rules to implement Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).3 Section 258 prohibits the practice of "slamming," the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of

3

47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000); Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000), Errata, DA No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001); Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); Order, FCC 03-116, (rel. May 23, 2003). Prior to the adoption of Section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to address the slamming problem. See, e.g., Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).

a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service. In the Section 258 Order, the Commission adopted aggressive new rules designed to take the profit out of slamming, broadened the scope of the slamming rules to encompass all carriers, and modified its existing requirements for the authorization and verification of preferred carrier changes. The rules require, among other things, that a carrier receive individual subscriber consent before a carrier change may occur. Pursuant to Section 258, carriers are absolutely barred from changing a customer's preferred local or long distance carrier without first complying with one of the Commission's verification procedures. Specifically, a carrier must: (1) obtain the subscriber's written or electronically signed authorization in a format that meets the requirements of Section 64.1130 authorization; (2) obtain confirmation from the subscriber via a toll-free number provided exclusively for the purpose of confirming orders electronically; or (3) utilize an independent third party to verify the subscriber's order.

6

3. The Commission also has adopted liability rules. These rules require the carrier to absolve the subscriber where the subscriber has not paid his or her bill. In that context, if the subscriber has not already paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the subscriber is absolved of liability for charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier for service provided during the first 30 days after the unauthorized change. Where the subscriber has paid charges to the unauthorized carrier, the Commission's rules require that the unauthorized carrier pay 150% of those charges to the authorized carrier, and the authorized carrier shall refund or credit to the subscriber 50% of all charges paid by the subscriber to the unauthorized carrier." Carriers should note that our actions in this order do not preclude the Commission from taking additional action, if warranted, pursuant to Section 503 of the Act.10

4. We received Complainant's complaint on February 14, 2005, alleging that Complainant's telecommunications service provider had been changed to Main Street without Complainant's authorization. Pursuant to Sections 1.719 and 64.1150 of our rules," we notified Main Street of the complaint and Main Street responded on June 21, 2005. We find that Main

7

47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120.

47 U.S.C. § 258(a).

12

See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1120(c). Section 64.1130 details the requirements for letter of agency form and content for written or electronically signed authorizations. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1130.

See 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1140, 64.1160. Any charges imposed by the unauthorized carrier on the subscriber for service provided after this 30-day period shall be paid by the subscriber to the authorized carrier at the rates the subscriber was paying to the authorized carrier at the time of the unauthorized change. Id.

47 C.F.R. § 1.719 (Commission procedure for informal complaints filed pursuant to Section 258 of the Act); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1150 (procedures for resolution of unauthorized changes in preferred carrier).

Street did not violate our carrier change rules.

5.

13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 258, and Sections 0.141, 0.361 and 1.719 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.141, 0.361, 1.719, the complaint filed by Complainant against Main Street IS DENIED.

6.

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that this Order is effective upon release.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Nancy A. Stevenson, Deputy Chief

Consumer Policy Division

Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau

(Continued from previous page)

12

Main Street's Response to Informal Complaint No. 05-S89122, received June 21, 2005.

13

If Complainant is unsatisfied with the resolution of this complaint, Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission pursuant to Section 1.721 of Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.721. Such filing will be deemed to relate back to the filing date of Complainant's informal complaint so long as the formal complaint is filed within 45 days from the date this order is mailed or delivered electronically to Complainant. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.719.

By the Deputy Chief, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:

1. In this Order, we consider the complaint filed by Complainant' alleging that America Net LLC (America Net) changed Complainant's telecommunications service provider without obtaining authorization and verification from Complainant in violation of the Commission's rules. We conclude that America Net's actions did not result in an unauthorized change in Complainant's telecommunications service provider and we deny Complainant's complaint.

2. In December 1998, the Commission released the Section 258 Order in which it adopted rules to implement Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934 (Act), as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996 Act).3 Section 258 prohibits the practice of "slamming," the submission or execution of an unauthorized change in a subscriber's selection of

3

47 U.S.C. § 258(a); Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996); Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 1999); First Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 8158 (2000); stay lifted, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2000); Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd 15996 (2000), Errata, DA No. 00-2163 (rel. Sept. 25, 2000), Erratum, DA No. 00-2192 (rel. Oct. 4, 2000), Order, FCC 01-67 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001); Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 5099 (2003); Order, FCC 03-116, (rel. May 23, 2003). Prior to the adoption of Section 258, the Commission had taken various steps to address the slamming problem. See, e.g., Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9560 (1995), stayed in part, 11 FCC Rcd 856 (1995); Policies and Rules Concerning Changing Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 91-64, 7 FCC Rcd 1038 (1992), reconsideration denied, 8 FCC Rcd 3215 (1993); Investigation of Access and Divestiture Related Tariffs, CC Docket No. 83-1145, Phase I, 101 F.C.C.2d 911, 101 F.C.C.2d 935, reconsideration denied, 102 F.C.C.2d 503 (1985).