FCC Asks 'Opt-In, Or Opt-Out?'

FrankHaynes writes: "The U.S. FCC seeks comments on this proposed rule in which they seek 'to obtain a more complete record on ways in which customers can consent to a carrier's use of their CPNI (Customer Proprietary Network Information)'. They are debating an opt-in approach versus an opt-out approach. Commentors have until 1 November, 2001 to submit their opinions." Opt-out puts the burden on the victim; opt-in encourages a responsible, sustainable customer / company relationship. What am I missing here?

Comments

Opt-in

[CleverNickName]

I have always argued that opt-in is the fair way to go. Why should the burden of being left the hell alone fall onto me, the consumer?

And I don't know about you, but when I opt out, I feel like a bit of a heel: "Here's all my information, my email, my address, my phone number...now, please don't use any of this information, dear spammer."

I wonder if the day is not too far off when those of us who have opted out get on a big list of "people who've opted out" and get a mass "So, you like to opt out, eh?" mailing...

The FCC should go with opt in. It's for questions like these that "duh" was invented.

Re:Opt-in

[haplo21112]

Absolutely must be an Opt-IN system, and the default for anything asking if you want to be in or not should be legally mandated to be NO. Such as web sites that ask you if you want to receive such and such, or from time to time we make information available, that checkmark should be off, if I want it I should have to set it.

What, I should have to WORK to be left alone?

[allism]

My former insurance company sent me three letters (one for each of our cars and one for our renter's insurance), stating that I had to fill out each one and send them back in (one letter wouldn't cover it) to get opted out of having our personal information sold. The insult added to injury, however, was that I HAD TO PAY FOR THE *(&^% STAMPS to send these back...and they made it clear in the letter that sending them back in the same envelope would lead to the letters being disregarded.

Re:What, I should have to WORK to be left alone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm loosing my mind here, but would that be going against the opt-out laws anyways? If your on the opt out list for a company, they CANNOT send you unsolicited mail for one year. Last time I checked, once your on their list, regardless, they can't send you mail. If they do, you can take them to court if you have proof that you have opted out and they still sent you something.

What Timothy's missing

[Rick the Red]

What am I missing here?

Uh, a clue, perhaps? Of course opt-in is better for the public than opt-out. That's why the FCC has never before supported opt-in for anything. Wake up! The news here is that they are even considering opt-out, but I suppose that can be written off to posturing so they can claim they asked for public comment. Asking doesn't mean they have to listen to our replies. But reply anyway -- tilting at windmills will give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside while you rot in jail for opposing the will of our corporate government, you terrorist.

Gee let me think...

[hhe_hee]

If we use opt-out I could at least get an email from every company in the world. And to make sure Im not gonna get more mails, I have to answer that mail and say "No I don't want to have any more mails from you, thank you!". And then they are surely gonna send a reply to me, saying "We have received your request, you will be removed from our list. But if you in the future wants to have blablabla."
So in the long run I could get atleast 2 times more mails than there are companies in the world.

Sounds good eh? :(

Uh...where do the comments GO?...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Maybe it's buried in there and I just didn't see it yet, but while the document does indeed say they are looking for comments, I don't see anything saying where to send the comments in question...

Perhaps the FCC has "Opted-out" of public commentary...

They go here...

[ebonkyre]

Instructions for filing comments can be found at:
For Consumers: The Rulemaking Process

Comments can be filed online at:
Electronic Comment Filing System

Perhaps this would be more logical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opt-in or Opt-out doesn't really matter to me... If I'm filling out a form for something, I have to read the "do you want our spam? check yes or no" section anyway... so a mouse-click or a pen stroke either way is unimportant to me.

Perhaps a "is it OK for us to sell your information to the highest bidder?" Opt-in or Opt-out law would be more productive.

Why FCC involved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the FCC pretty much wash their hands of Internet jurisdiction a few years ago, when they were offered it?

Opt-in means NO forms...

[Red Aardvark House]

If you want your privacy. The difference between the two is where the burden is placed.

Contact the FCC

[StikyPad]

Here's the Google cache of FCC Contacts.

It has the e-mail addresses for the comissioners as well.

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov

Re:Contact the FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

It would certainly be a shame if those e-mail addresses were signed up for all sorts of mailing lists. Yes indeed. That would be shameful. I definately don't want to see anyone use those e-mail addresses for free e-mail accounts with all hobbies and interests selected at someplace like hotmail, or yahoo.

Ummm... okay.

[mindstrm]

Why even put it to a vote? It's obvious, isn't it?
Opt-In is best for the consumer... Opt-Out is favorable for the business.