FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

netringer writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is proposing some new regulations creating a national 'Do Not Call' list to keep US phones from being rung by telemarketers. Telemarketers who call a number on the list could be fined up $11,000. The new FTC rules also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled and limit abandoned 'hang up' calls from predictive dialers. The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before. The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities."

Comments

Potentional Loss of Buying Opportunities?

[Cyclopedian]

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Please. All the telemarketers want to sell you are 'insurance', aluminum siding, and all unwanted assorted crap. I'm an informed consumer and if there's something I want to get, I'll find it and get it myself, thank you.

-Cyc

Sueing on what basis

[phorm]

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Seems to me that if you took the time to sign up for this list, then you would be just plain pissed off by any further telemarketer calls, and thus not likely to purchase anything anyways. No customer lost here.

Now, if they really want to advertise, I've found those washroom/urinal advertising signs to be quite effective as most men prefer to look straight forward and having something to read helps prevent the possibility of peripheral vision eye-wandering.

Barrier to Entry

[mr.crutch]

The FTC can't reasonably regulate international companies, that's why.

The trouble with a "Do Not Spam" list is that there is no international barrier to entry for any of these spammers. If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper).

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant. The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls. The FTC could try to regulate Spam, but the are just too many loopholes to be successful.

Re:Barrier to Entry

[Large Green Mallard]

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant.

Keep in mind, a growing number of companies in the US are moving their call centres to India... it can't be TOO expensive :/

But....

[www.sorehands.com]

It could also be made to be illegal to use spammers! Make companies that hire spammers liable for the same damages as the spammer. That will take away from the spammer's income stream.

Re:But....

[multimed]

That's exactly what I've been arguing for some time. For the most part, unsolicited spam is illegal, but it's not enforcable because the spammers change ISPs and/or are offshore, so they can't be found or punished. But there is almost always a contact of some sort in the email in order for the "customer" to give the company money. Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too. It's no different that holding a company that knowingly sells stolen goods liable. Just because they aren't the ones breaking the law doesn't mean they can profit from the crime.

Re:Maybe, but

[archeopterix]

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time.

Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic? Unfortunately this is not that simple. Well, there is a partial solution - a trusted organization that keeps the list and only answers queries about e-mail addresses. Or just publishing hashes of the prohibited e-mails. But this is only partial.

It is *NOT* a Free Speech Issue

[zentec]

Free speech gives you the right to go out on the corner, stand on the soap box and have at it.

Free speech does not give you the right to enter onto private propery and spout whatever it is you want to spout. Malls, theatres, business, they all apply and it applies equally when you _call_ my private property on _my_ phone. It's nice how the greatest share of cost in telemarketing is heaped upon the person that pays for the incoming line.

I hope this goes before the Supreme Court. It won't because the argument that it restricts free speech is patently absurd.

Senile parents loophole?

[Gorimek]

Maybe it's that children would put their senile and easily defrauded parents on the list, and thus remove the easiest prey from the game.

Remember the good old days...

[4/3PI*R^3]

Rember when the phone system was only a simple person-to-person communication system?
1. In came the telemarketers
2. Next came legislation restriction the time of calls
3. Then came Caller-ID (for a fee) to allow you to know who was calling before you answered
4. Then came Caller-ID block (per use or permanently on your line for a fee) to allow you to block your Caller-ID information.
5. Then came Anonymous Call Block (for a fee) so that anonymous telemarketers could not call your number.

Let's recap:
1. The phone company charges you and the telemarketer for person-to-person communication.
2. The phone company sells your phone number to telemarketers.
3. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to identify who is calling before you answer.
4. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method of hiding who you are.
5. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to block calls that are blocked.
6. We have to spend our tax dollars to compile a list of numbers that telemarketers can't call.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this system? Isn't this like creating a war and then selling arms to both sides?

Re:Now

[Mac Degger]

The difference is that spam is always bad, and circumventing copyright protection has many ambiguous and good uses.

Comparing DMCA and anti-spam laws can't be done, as they aren't equal.

The worst telemarketters ever...

[Elwood P Dowd]

are the cops.

Some local foundation for police benefits was calling around asking for donations. Since they're a nonprofit, and perhaps government linked, they've got all kinds of special legal leeway with telemarketting. I think.

They called me four fucking times in two days:

"In these troubling times, do you feel that it's important to give our police officers all the support they need?"
"Uh. I guess. Could you please put me on your do not call list?"
"Oh. Sure."
"Thanks." [click]

The next day, I got an identical call (different voice every time). Ten minutes later, another guy called.

"I've asked you to put me on your do not call list twice already. How come you keep calling me?"
"I'm sorry sir, I see you as a new number on my computer."
"Well, I'm not. Is there something you can do about this? Clearly something is the matter with your computer system."
"Well, I'll mark your number this time."
"Thanks, But I'd..." [click] (cut off)

Then, a half an hour later, I got another new voice. I interrupted him in middle of his pitch:

"I'm sorry, this is the fourth time someone has called me for your fundraiser, and every single time I've told them to put me on the do not call list. I understand that your computer says that I'm a new number, but it's wrong. At this point, I'm concerned that you're operating your fundraiser in violation of FCC regulation..." (cut off)

"Well. I can see why they didn't put your name on the no call list, asshole." [click]

There were no more calls, though. I think the fundraiser ended. All the voices were men, so I guess it was off duty cops that were doing the calling. That would explain the attitude. I swear, I was perfectly polite with every single call. Until the last one, I guess. Thugs.