[TruckerDan]

I have been doing some research since Asset Acceptance LLC keeps calling for an AT&T (Southwestern Bell) phone bill dating to 2005.

Here are the results of my research. I would love for others to verify my findings and see if my conclusions are correct in assuming they actually don’t have the right to collect on this debt.

U.S. Code TITLE 47—TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 153

(3) AT&T Consent Decree
The term “AT&T Consent Decree” means the order entered August 24, 1982, in the antitrust action styled United States v. Western Electric, Civil Action No. 82–0192, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and includes any judgment or order with respect to such action entered on or after August 24, 1982.

(4) Bell operating company
The term “Bell operating company”—
(A) means any of the following companies: Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, New Jersey Bell Telephone Company, New York Telephone S West Communications Company, South Central Bell Telephone Company, Company, U Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia, The Diamond State Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, or Wisconsin Telephone Company; and
(B) includes any successor or assign of any such company that provides wireline telephone exchange service; but
(C) does not include an affiliate of any such company, other than an affiliate described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

If I did my research properly, the above establishes AT&T and Southwestern Bell to both be covered under this act, even though they subsequently became one and the same.

TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 415. Limitations of actions

(a) Recovery of charges by carrier
All actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after.

(b) Recovery of damages
All complaints against carriers for the recovery of damages not based on overcharges shall be filed with the Commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, subject to subsection (d) of this section.

(c) Recovery of overcharges
For recovery of overcharges action at law shall be begun or complaint filed with the Commission against carriers within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, subject to subsection (d) of this section, except that if claim for the overcharge has been presented in writing to the carrier within the two-year period of limitation said period shall be extended to include two years from the time notice in writing is given by the carrier to the claimant of disallowance of the claim, or any part or parts thereof, specified in the notice.

(d) Extension
If on or before expiration of the period of limitation in subsection (b) or (c) of this section a carrier begins action under subsection (a) of this section for recovery of lawful charges in respect of the same service, or, without beginning action, collects charges in respect of that service, said period of limitation shall be extended to include ninety days from the time such action is begun or such charges are collected by the carrier.

As stated above, I am asking for validation of this research, as I might be wrong, but to me, as it stands, it looks like according to Federal law, beyond two years without an extension due to payment, they cannot collect from me. Is that right?

[dedelman]

47 USC 415 applies if the debt is within the scope of the Federal Communications Act, which covers all cellular and wireless communications and interstate and foreign landline communications. The issue is presented in a class action pending in Chicago.

[Fr_Chuck]

And it is about "over charges" where you were changed too much and want to sue the telephone companies for your money back. It limits the time you can make claim against them, that is what I read into it.

So unless this was over charges you want them to pay you back, your state statue of limiation on this bill would be the factor the court will sue.

[dedelman]

No, 415(a) applies to collection actions by carriers and anyone claiming to be the assignee of a carrier. The other subsections apply to overcharges.

[TruckerDan]

And it is about "over charges" where you were changed too much and want to sue the telephone companies for your money back. It limits the time you can make claim against them, that is what I read into it.

So unless this was over charges you want them to pay you back, your state statue of limiation on this bill would be the factor the court will sue.

(a) Recovery of charges by carrier
All actions at law by carriers for recovery of their lawful charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after.

This is the part that doesn't jive with your statement. If I read it right, it relates to all charges BY the carrier. I am guessing the statute was set this way because the telcos wanted protection, and the FCC made it a two way street. We can't sue them past 2 years, nor can they collect past it, unless an extension is in effect, as spelled out in the law.