PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Telephone Slamming Prevention Act of 1998

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 10, 1998

Telephone Slamming Prevention Act of 1998 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) to require procedures prescribed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to verify a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange or toll service to: (1) preclude the use of negative option letters of agency; and (2) require the retention of a subscriber's selection verification. Allows a subscriber whose provider is changed in violation of such Act to pay the former provider for all services provided by the unauthorized provider. Authorizes civil penalties: (1) of a minimum of $50,000 for the first offense and $100,000 for any additional offense by carriers who submit or execute an unauthorized change of provider service; and (2) in the case of a carrier that submits or executes unauthorized changes on behalf of its agents or resellers. Prescribes criminal penalties of a fine and up to one year in prison for a first offense and up to five years in prison for a subsequent offense for such a willful violation by any person. Prohibits any person or company convicted of such violations from participating in the provision of universal telecommunications service and related activities authorized under the Act. Authorizes reinstatement of such participation, but no earlier than five years after such prohibition, if found by the FCC to be in the public interest. Authorizes a State to bring an action on behalf of its residents when it has reason to believe that a carrier has or is engaging in a pattern or practice of making such unauthorized changes in service providers. Requires each carrier to report to the FCC on the number of complaints of unauthorized provider changes submitted to such carrier by its subscribers. Directs the FCC to utilize such information to identify carriers that engage in patterns and practices of unauthorized provider changes. Directs the FCC to report to the Congress on: (1) its enforcement against carriers for violations of this Act; (2) the adequacy and effectiveness of carrier licensing requirements and procedures in determining whether a carrier is suitable for such license; and (3) additional actions the FCC could take to ensure that new licenses are not issued to persons or carriers that have previously lost such license due to violations covered by this Act or that have engaged in egregious violations covered by this Act.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME] · R–ME

Committees

  • Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1700-1702)

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1740 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1740 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1740 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1740 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources