Slashdot Mirror


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."

5 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Sueing on what basis by phorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Barrier to Entry by mr.crutch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. It is *NOT* a Free Speech Issue by zentec · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.

  4. Remember the good old days... by 4/3PI*R^3 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

  5. Re:Now by Mac+Degger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?