Slashdot Mirror

That's what I've always thought about annualcreditreport.com. It's the FTC running the show, so why don't they get a .gov domain name? Now, we're stuck with Experian's crappy TV commercials with that idiot driving the car (die already, will you?) where they trick people into thinking they're the way you're supposed to get free credit reports. They already got their wrist slapped once, but they're still at it.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/08/consumerinfo.shtm

On the contrary, I challenge you to find a "real" economist who does not describe intellectual property as a form of monopoly, and then challenge you to describe how a "free market" can cope with a form of monopoly while still remaining "free".

I'd also like to see your reference on where Adam Smith supports "intellectual property" rights, since I have not seen anything in his actual writing that suggests this. I've seen a lot of bullshit where corporate libertarians mindlessly SAY that Adam Smith supports IP law, but they never actually provide any quotes to support their argument.

Decent web page against your interpretation of Adam Smith:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/olshovedonpaul.htm

Decent web page against Ayn Rand's interpretation of intellectual property:

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2005/05/some_thoughts_o.html

Whether it is arcane or not is debatable, but the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 specifically prohibits using a false "From" header.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm

"It bans false or misleading header information. Your email's "From," "To," and routing information - including the originating domain name and email address - must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email."

The FTC says it isn't illegal to have a monopoly.

You seem to completely miss the idea that Bait and Switch is actually illegal and that there are "Truth in Advertising" laws that forbid a company from improperly representing their product. Try again.

Sec. 238.0 Bait advertising defined.1

Bait advertising is an alluring but insincere offer to sell a product or service which the advertiser in truth does not intend or want to sell. Its purpose is to switch consumers from buying the advertised merchandise, in order to sell something else, usually at a higher price or on a basis more advantageous to the advertiser. The primary aim of a bait advertisement is to obtain leads as to persons interested in buying merchandise of the type so advertised.Sec. 238.1 Bait advertisement.

Amazon clearly intended to sell the product. They were not trying to switch to a different product at the higher price. The mistake could be seen as having the side effect of selling the same product at the higher price.

No advertisement containing an offer to sell a product should be published when the offer is not a bona fide effort to sell the advertised product. [Guide 1]

Sec. 238.2 Initial offer.

(a) No statement or illustration should be used in any advertisement which creates a false impression of the grade, quality, make, value, currency of model, size, color, usability, or origin of the product offered, or which may otherwise misrepresent the product in such a manner that later, on disclosure of the true facts, the purchaser may be switched from the advertised product to another.

(b) Even though the true facts are subsequently made known to the buyer, the law is violated if the first contact or interview is secured by deception. [Guide 2]

They advertised the exact same product before and after the price change. No differences in quality, make, value, etc. Just a difference in price. I truly don't think that databases errors can be seen as deceptive acts. Deception is a characterization of a behavior. Was Amazon truly, in a premeditated fashion, deceiving the consumer with an error in their database? I would say that is very hard to prove, and on the basis of a single product error, especially given the volume of transactions that Amazon conducts.

Sec. 238.3 Discouragement of purchase of advertised merchandise.

No act or practice should be engaged in by an advertiser to discourage the purchase of the advertised merchandise as part of a bait scheme to sell other merchandise. Among acts or practices which will be considered in determining if an advertisement is a bona fide offer are:

(a) The refusal to show, demonstrate, or sell the product offered in accordance with the terms of the offer,

(b) The disparagement by acts or words of the advertised product or the disparagement of the guarantee, credit terms, availability of service, repairs or parts, or in any other respect, in connection with it,

(c) The failure to have available at all outlets listed in the advertisement a sufficient quantity of the advertised product to meet reasonably anticipated demands, unless the advertisement clearly and adequately discloses that supply is limited and/or the merchandise is available only at designated outlets,

(d) The refusal to take orders for the advertised merchandise to be delivered within a reasonable period of time,

(e) The showing or demonstrating of a product which is defective, unusable or impractical for the purpose represented or implied in the advertisement,

(f) Use of a sales plan or method of compensation for salesmen or penalizing salesmen, designed to prevent or discourage them from selling the

Start here for options to opt out of some junk mail offers (USA link)

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/prescreen.shtm

When the number is de-activated or moved by the phone company, your name and number and come off the list. I guess the phone company notifies the FTC, or something like that.

See http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm for more info. Note that the fucktards at the FTC refer to people as "consumers," despite the fact that a person is probably registering on the Do Not Call list because they aren't consumers.

Antitrust

When antitrust cases are about complex technical subjects like Microsoft and the market for PC operating systems, or Hughes/Echostar and the market for satellite TV broadcasting, it's easy just to throw up your hands and assume that the government's experts must be right. But when an antitrust case is about ice cream, you don't have to be an expert to form a solid opinion.

Take a look at the Federal Trade Commission's decision this week to block the proposed merger of Nestlé Holdings and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream on antitrust grounds. The issues at stake are so simple that the injustice, arbitrariness, and sheer absurdity of American antitrust regulation jump out with breathtaking clarity.

The FTC decision allows the government to disrupt a voluntary and mutually sought combination of two private businesses. The decision also slashed a billion dollars in market value from Dreyer's stock as soon as it was announced.

The FTC believes "that the elimination of Dreyer's would likely lead to anticompetitive effects in the market for superpremium ice cream." Before this action, did you even know that there was something called a "market for superpremium ice cream"? Well, now you know.

Imagine, if you will, an incredibly complex diagram covering a wall in the office of a Ph. D. at the FTC. The diagram is titled "The Market for Food," and the hierarchical scheme branches from there to include every possible food group. Now erase everything that isn't under "The Market for Deserts," and then erase everything that isn't below "The Market for Frozen Deserts," and then erase everything that isn't beneath "The Market for Ice Cream." Not much of the diagram remains (we're already down to something the size of a postage stamp). But now erase "The Market for Cheap-o Ice Cream," "The Market for Regular Ice Cream," and "The Market for Premium Ice Cream." What you have left is about the size of Abraham Lincoln's nostril on a penny. This is "The Market for Superpremium Ice Cream."

In this tiny little sub-sub-sub-sub-market, Dreyer's brands Dreamery, Godiva, and Starbucks battle it out with Nestlé's Häagen Dazs and Unilever's Ben & Jerry's. The big issue, according to the FTC -- or the reason why government intervened and cost Dreyer's shareholders $1 billion -- is that "this deal will reduce the number of significant competitors from three to two" and "would likely raise prices and reduce choice for consumers." Even if you think the government should be concerned with such matters, none of this action means a thing unless you accept "The Market for Superpremium Ice Cream" as a meaningful reality.

Who's to say this market is of any importance? Who's to say it needs the government to interfere with its private business decisions?

What if consumer choice in "The Market for Superpremium Ice Cream" was narrowed to a single brand and prices became astronomical? What if "The Market for Superpremium Ice Cream" vanished from the face of the earth altogether? So what? Consumers would simply choose from the dozens of remaining premium, regular, and cheap-o ice cream brands. Or they could switch to some other desert. Let them eat superpremium cake!

Even if "The Market for Superpremium Ice Cream" needed to be policed for competition, who's to say that the correct number of competitors is two rather than three? Is it always better to have more competitors in a market?

In this country we have only two political parties of real influence. Would we be better off with more parties, as is the case in Italy and Israel? Maybe we would, and we are free to have them -- or not. But in the category of ice cream -- or rather, superpremium ice cream -- we are not free to have less than three competitors positioning for space in the superpremium ice cream aisle.

And why should we necessarily be concerned that prices might rise with a drop

The ftc and the credit agencies set up a site for... well just about everyone: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/prescreen.shtm

Sometimes I think they spend more time coming up with catchy acronyms than anything else. Think of the CAN-SPAM Act. These guys are worth every penny!

It looks like it's a penalty enhancement for "harvesting", not a specific prohibition. My bad.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm

Or if you prefer your laws raw: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt

A few points:

1. If spam was only a problem because of its use in crime there would be no need for laws specific to spam. Criminals willing to commit fraud and other crimes are unlikely to balk at sending spam unless the penalties are ridiculously severe.
2. If you are in the U.S. this is what the FTC wants you to know about the CAN-SPAM act.
3. Don't read too much into people not opting out of your emails. For one thing, spammers often use 'opt-out' links to verify whether an email address is active. Clicking on the links often (usually?) results in more spam. It is also likely some portion of your emails are never being read - possibly because they're filtered into a spam folder.
4. By sending unsolicited mail you may be inadvertantly associating your business/brand with "attempts at identity theft, selling prescription drugs (real or fake), selling fake brand products, etc." (I think you recognize this.)

'P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.'

Any references? It was supposed to expire in the sense that people would have to re-register. I have never read that it is going to expire and become a "call-us-now-since-you-haven't-talked-to-us-in-five-years" list. But even the expiration that would require you to re-register is on thin ice. See here: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm

"...the Commission now commits that it will not drop any telephone numbers from the Registry based on the five-year expiration period pending final Congressional or agency action on whether to make registration permanent."

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/10/dnctestimony.shtm
Make sure you contact your congress critter about the permanency of the DNC list.
Either that or just make sure to register again in 5 years.

I'm pretty sure the inflated supply order is a standard scam. Because they sent you something unsolicited, you're perfectly within your rights to keep their stuff and not pay them.

Ahh, yes, here it is:

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/supplies.shtm

"At the risk of being modded a troll, I think the long-term solution to spam is to allow it and regulate it. If it were allowed, I believe people who are skirting the law to send spam would be rapidly marginalized by legitimate operations. The American way for most commercial endeavors is to allow it, regulate it, and tax it. Do those three things to commercial email, provide a centralized opt-out system, and I believe the illicit stuff will be marginalized and far easier for law enforcement to deal with. (Also, the loss of tax revenue would be an incentive for lawmakers to stiffen the penalties for the violators). BTW, when I say tax it, I mean the sending. Even a one cent fee per email would be an enormous tax windfall if even a small fraction of these operations went legit."

Commercial mailings and SPAM while lumped into the same basket are technically and legally two different things. Unsolicited commercial emails are what are typically defined as SPAM, and commercial mailings to lists that have been generated by users signing up for something and being notified that they are joining a mailing list or some similar method. Legal list management and collection methods include inclusion of terms in a privacy and/or data collection policy, single opt in on web forms, double opt in via web forms and some type of address verification follow up.

Unsolicited commercial mailings sent to addresses of individuals who did not sign up for any offer that notified the user in a legal manner is already illegal and there are penalties in place for companies and individuals that operate in that manner. Commercial mailers that mail to their lists while prominently displaying opt out information including a physical mailing address, that don't use deceptive subjects, from addresses, and honor opt out requests are operating within U.S. law. Certain states may have additional requirements, but most commercial mailers simply try to stay compliant with the Federal CAN-SPAM act. You can read the requirements here: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm

I'll address this next point separately.

"BTW, when I say tax it, I mean the sending. Even a one cent fee per email would be an enormous tax windfall if even a small fraction of these operations went legit."

The DMA will will fight something like this tooth and nail, and unless you want all outgoing emails to be taxed, I would suggest that they would win. If something like this were to be put into place the vast majority of small companies that also send bulk email would go out of business immediately. The large bulk mailers, and those that send the majority of messages (large numbers to each address in their lists every day) would be the only ones left, and they would probably have problems paying these fees.

It's not uncommon for bulk emailers to send out 10 million or more messages in a day, of which they might have a 2% conversion ratio or less. $100,000 to make a few hundred dollars in sales would put a significant number of companies that are operating within the law out of business. It would also likely encourage those that are already operating outside the law to continue to do so as there would be no incentive for them to become legal mailers. This could cut into the amount of legitimate commercial emails that are sent while increasing the number of illegitimate commercial emails being sent. The economics simply don't support a tax of that nature. Another thing that would be problematic is tracking. How do you effectively track the number of outgoing emails, and if you can tax the companies that are sending bulk emails why can't you tax every one that is sending emails? If it's such a great method for bringing in tax revenue whey shouldn't all emails be taxed?

Ok, they nailed one. Whos next? I can not believe the number of false advertisements I see on the net. Most from legitimate companies that know better than to do it!

I have gone over to reporting them when I find them, you just need to go to

https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01

and fill out the report. They will do the rest.

I am sure we can find lots of examples to keep the FTC busy.

No. The Credit Reporting Agencies are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Section 1681h(e) provides:

"Except as provided in sections 616 and 617 [ 1681n and 1681o] of this title, no consumer may bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency..."

Maybe you want to see the FTC's report on the issue. Here's the failure rates:

R-rated movie ticket: 39%
M-rated video game: 41%
R-rated movie on video: 71%
Unrated movie on video: 71%
CDs with "Explicit Content" labels: 76%

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.

There is far more then just having a credit card with a low limit. Your credit score or FICO score is also based on having available credit, using that credit, and paying on that credit over time. Another factor is the limit compared to what your balance is. Showing a huge credit limit and your ability to maintain the balance low is a good thing for a house purchase. It shows disipline. If you ever looked at your credit report [*], you will see a line on most revolving credit lines that shows the max balance the account had for a certain time period.

Everyone in the US can get a free credit report from the big three with no strings yearly. See the info at the FTC site here for more info (or search Google for free credit report and follow the link to the FTC site if you do not trust my link)
Pay particular attention to the section called "A Warning About "Imposter" Websites" as there are many sites that try to mimick this FTC program but will charge you or give a hard sell for credit services in the process of providing your "free" credit report.

You can get a good idea of what info goes into making your FICO score and general tips for making it better from here. Many banking and money sites offer similar advice.

In sum, this Motion seeks an Order from this Court against TD AMERITRADE, Inc. that: ... 8. Requires TD AMERITRADE, Inc. to prominently disclose in its Privacy Statement and in emails or other individual disclosures to its accountholders: ALERT: AMERITRADE'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SECURE AND WE CANNOT ASSURE THE SECURITY OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME ACCOUNTHOLDERS' EMAIL ADDRESSES HAVE LEAKED FROM AMERITRADE'S COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO SPAMMERS. AMERITRADE HAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THIS SITUATION. YOUR NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS MAY HAVE BEEN LEAKED AS WELL. We recommend that you place a fraud alert on your credit file. A fraud alert tells creditors to contact you before they open any new accounts or change your existing accounts. Call any one of the three major credit bureaus. As soon as one credit bureau confirms your fraud alert, the others are notified to place fraud alerts. All three credit reports will be sent to you, free of charge, for your review. You can contact Equifax (800-685-1111), Experian (888-397-3742), or TransUnionCorp (800-680-7289). Even if you do not find any suspicious activity on your initial credit reports, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recommends that you check your credit reports periodically. Victim information sometimes is held for use or shared among a group of thieves at different times. Checking your credit reports periodically can help you spot problems and address them quickly. If you find suspicious activity on your credit reports or have reason to believe your information is being misused, call [insert contact information for law enforcement] and file a police report. Get a copy of the report; many creditors want the information it contains to absolve you of the fraudulent debts. You also should file a complaint with the FTC at www.consumer.gov/idtheft or at 1-877-ID-THEFT (877-438-4338). Your complaint will be added to the FTC's Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse, where it will be accessible to law enforcers for their investigations. You can obtain a copy of Take Charge: Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, a comprehensive guide from the FTC to help you guard against and deal with identity theft at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/idtheft/idt04.htm

Did you *read* the comment I was replying to?
Protections like "they must give refunds, not credit notes", or requiring replacement of a product regardless of whether you have a receipt.
Sure stores will claim whatever rules they want, but when push comes to shove, that's moot if there are contradictory laws on the books.
For instance, an earlier post pointed out if it breaks within 6 months he can return it as a defective product, regardless of whatever warrantee (or lack thereof) they want to claim (or try to sell)
And to partially answer my own question, here's some of the consumer protections in the US: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/consumer/shop/rights.shtm
However, I was particularly curious which of the particular protections listed in the post I was originally responding to might also apply in the US.

In fact, M-M covers more than just cars. In the US, they would have to prove the OS change caused the cracking of the joint before they could deny warranty coverage.

Of course, in the US, stupid CompUSA would reload the factory OS disks and wipe out your hard drive in the process of fixing the hinge.

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions
Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.

If they traveled via USPS, then it would be federal and not state.

As to which reg:
"Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;"

... grinding that anti-MS axe.

Hey, that's not fair. I stand up for Microsoft now and then. Were those posts not helpful?

The Fine Article is about HP selling consumer desktop PCs with Linux, though. I don't what your post has to do with that but you anonymous cowards aren't getting astroturf points off of me today. Instead I'll provide informative topical discussion and foil your evil plot.

The original source for this story is apcmag. From that article:

Hewlett-Packard, the world's largest PC manufacturer, has announced it will start selling Linux-based PCs from $AU600 in Australia.

I can only hope this is a pilot, with PCs for the US market to follow. Like many of the people leaving comments on that story, I would like to buy some Linux laptops from HP here in the US. I would also like to see a choice of processors. This is a nice start though.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Desktop also comes with OpenOffice preinstalled, Firefox for web browsing and Evolution for email.

That sounds like a full featured environment for the average user. Much better than Microsoft Works, a non-removable trial copy of Office and the usual collection of junkware that comes with a Windows PC. With compatible software vendors like this impressive list finding commercial software for your HP/Red Hat system should be no trouble. Dag has a whole bunch of free stuff available for it too. I imagine Windows users will have a hard time understanding that yes, you can just click on one of thousands of great free programs and it will install but it won't turn your PC into a spam zombie. It shouldn't take them long to get fond of it though. That's a significant change for people used to dealing with a software vendor that's proud that three quarters of a million of their customers were infested with root kits.

Windows gamers will be relieved to hear that for a measly $5/mo they can join Transgaming and play Windows games. If they have Windows programs they don't want to throw away like one of these, Wine will be a nice free addition to their Red Hat desktop. If they prefer a professionally maintained compatibility engine they might like Codeweavers' Crossover Linux which supports these programs and only costs $40.

The list of hardware known to be compatible with RHEL 5 is impressive, as is the list of systems that are certified and supported.

Disclosure - I also don't work for anybody mentioned here or sell their stuff. My opinions belong to me and I'm not getting paid to have them. YMMV, yadda yadda.

The choice of Red Hat as a partner in this venture shows just how GNU/Linux

By "conspire" I meant plan. I bet most businesses have plans for how they're going to compete with and, god willing, put out of business their competitors. There's nothing wrong with wanting and getting all the business in your market.

Selling your products under cost to kill the competition isn't illegal:

A common complaint is that some companies try to monopolize a market through "predatory" or below-cost pricing. This can drive out smaller firms that cannot compete at those prices. But the lower prices a large retailer offers may simply reflect efficiencies from spreading overhead costs over a larger volume of sales. Because the antitrust laws encourage competition that leads to low prices, courts and antitrust authorities challenge predatory activities only when they will lead to higher prices.

I know in Canada, I can get the BBB or CRTC to investigate a shady business... but AFAIK they don't do anything without a complaint.

It's your country and your ISP; get things started!
FTC complain form
FCC complaint form
BBB complaint form

Looks to me to be fast, easy, and free. Step up!

"Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action"

What country are you living in? Here in the US, movies are NOT restricted when it comes to minors.

Even the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found children were far more successful in getting their hands on R rated DVD movies than M rated video games. Please educate yourself before claiming "Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action" because not only does it make you look simple-minded, but it helps give politicians, who receive campaign contribution from Hollywood, the excuses they need to not attack the movie industry (Yes, Leland Yee, author of the video game bill, received campaign contribution from the MPAA).

Here's the link to the FTC report:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.h tm

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/prescre en.shtm/

http://www.optoutprescreen.com/

Now they just send your bill to a collections agency.

That's easy - then you just sue the collection agency for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It's not terribly hard to do, and the crackheads the collection agencies hire will inevitably screw up. They may talk a good game over the phone, but their attitude changes when they get served with papers. The upshot usually is that they end up paying the bill and paying you a couple grand for a settlement. I have a few of these checks up on my wall now.

This got an insightful mod? Give me a fucking break. Yes, I've been on /. for four years, have over 2,000 posts and good karma but I'm trying to provide a link so I can scam people's personal information! That must be it!

You don't trust the site I linked? Go look at this one from the FTC then. It gives you a number (888-5-OPTOUT) to call if you'd rather do that then fill out the online form. It also links to a website, which is (surprise, surprise) the same one that I provided.

Unless you think the FTC is providing you with a link to a phishing site I really don't see what the problem is.

One can also stop the flow of pre-approved credit cards with an opt-out system similar do the do-not-call list.

It worked very well for me.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/prescre en.shtm

I'm sorry but there is no justification for creating a new law and a new class of crime so that your Asterisk system will work.

That was an example, and one benefit of the law. IMHO the callee, the person being bothered, have a right to know who is calling, just like you have a right to know who someone that is knocking on your door is before you let them in. Why should you be required to open the door to see who it is?

I don't support it for other commercial agencies though, some may not take incoming calls at all.

Tough. Set the callerID to an automated answering service that says so, or even just a number that just isn't answered, but it should be a number that identifies who you are.

In regards to your cell phone service, if such a law existed, there would be business justification for cell phone companies to allow the callerID to be set to the main business number for business customers. Problem solved, your concern addressed.

Again, I don't believe any company of any type has a right to call me at home and be anonymous. Period. You go into business, you obey the laws. Why SHOULD they have the right to be anonymous? This is a phone number, not all the employees social security numbers... With all the business calls, charities, political organizations, automated sales calls (even with my number on the do not call lists) I long ago lost any sympathy for businesses that hide, spoof, etc. callerID.

In regards to your "magic words", I have found that they are RARELY obeyed. First, private citizens can ONLY bring action if they have suffered $50,000 or more in "actual" damages. Furthermore, the fine is only $11,000 per incident. Despite more than 50 complaints to the FTC, I have not had ANY relief and have jack shit to show for my efforts.
I suggest you read http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/tsrcom p.shtm especially near the bottom which outlines the fines and who can bring action. Also in this document are regulations that require valid callerID on telemarketing calls. Again, this is ignored since there is nobody who is is able is willing to enforce it, and nobody willing is able.

Make it criminal as WELL as civil, and allow direct citizen action in all cases. Then we will see compliance.

Since the FTC doesn't think there's a problem.

I don't get it... why do we have to wait for the telecomm industry to screw us before we can do something? What happened to "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?"

Politicians (and the telecomm lobbyists who pay their bills) like to bloviate about the "free market"; can someone please point out what they're talking about? I've been looking for competition between broadband providers for a decade now, and the only thing I've come across is phone companies complaining that cable operators are horning in.

Actually, price fixing can be a violation of US statues. The act of mandating a minimum price that any authorized seller may charged could be considered collusion. Especially if it is paired up with a manufactured supply shortage. It is arguably an act of predatory pricing which could very well represent the exception to pricing

The definition of monopoly that you are using is too narrow. There are several different ways in which a corporation can be a monopoly. The problem is that under current legislation the corporation doesn't necessarily need to have a monopoly to fall under the category of antitrust regulations. Attempting to form a monopoly by using illegal means would be a cause for investigation, with possible sanctions.

Apple is without any doubt a large enough player in the mp3 player market to be able to set the prices at which retailers sell iPods, refusing to actually sell to a retailer that won't price them accordingly. The manipulation of the supply to back up a false sense of scarcity is shenanigans, while it may not itself be illegal, it did provide Apple with negotiating power early in the life cycle which it would not have had.

So for you to say that there isn't anything to investigate is not quite correct. It may very well be that they are engaging in only legal tactics, but that is a different thing entirely from saying that nothing they are doing is suspicious.

In fact if you look here http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/question.htm at the second question, you will see exactly what I am getting at. I have heard, that the agreement that Apple has retailers sign does mandate a minimum price. I could be wrong about that as I have only heard that second hand, but if that were the case it would definitely be an example of an antitrust violation.

And BTW, I never said Monopoly in my first post, I said antitrust violation. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

This seems like an excellent place to remind people that they can opt out of much of that "paper spam". In addition to helping the environment, you're also helping to protect yourself from one vector of identity theft.

They are-- section 5 of the FTC act, aka 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2):

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/us c_sec_15_00000045----000-.html ...I think the penalties go up to $10,000 per incident. The FTC has more documents about false advertising here:

    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menus/resources/guidance/ad v.shtm

The US does have consumer protection laws, which vary by state. In this case, the implied warranty would probably override any other contract or EULA (IANAL). Here is the relevant information from the FTC http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/products/warra nt.shtm/:

"Implied warranties are created by state law, and all states have them. Almost every purchase you make is covered by an implied warranty.

The most common type of implied warranty--a "warranty of merchantability," means that the seller promises that the product will do what it is supposed to do. For example, a car will run and a toaster will toast.

Another type of implied warranty is the "warranty of fitness for a particular purpose." This applies when you buy a product on the seller's advice that it is suitable for a particular use. For example, a person who suggests that you buy a certain sleeping bag for zero-degree weather warrants that the sleeping bag will be suitable for zero degrees.

If your purchase does not come with a written warranty, it is still covered by implied warranties unless the product is marked "as is," or the seller otherwise indicates in writing that no warranty is given. Several states, including Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Vermont, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, do not permit "as is" sales.

If problems arise that are not covered by the written warranty, you should investigate the protection given by your implied warranty.

Implied warranty coverage can last as long as four years, although the length of the coverage varies from state to state. A lawyer or a state consumer protection office can provide more information about implied warranty coverage in your state."