Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

Posted by timothy on from the bring-it-on dept.

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."

20 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.

    1. Re:Now by bethenco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure I could support a legally enforced `do not spam' list. In fact, I have mixed feelings about the `do not telemarket' list, despite the fact that I hate telemarketers (AT&T has called me trying to sell long-distance service about five times in the past few days!).

      The issue of the government controlling use of technology is what gives me reservations about making spam illegal. Electronic mail's vulnerability to spam is a flaw in the design of the system itself. We should not attempt to solve this problem by introducing regulations that ban certain uses of electronic mail. When you think about it, a federally enforced do not spam list would be a similar approach to that taken by the DMCA. The DMCA attempts to reduce copyright violations by outlawing the distribution or use of software that exploits flawed copy-protection schemes. A federally enforced do not spam list would attempt to reduce destructive uses of email by outlawing certain uses of the flawed electronic mail system.

      What about alternatives? In general, we should look for a technological solution to this technological problem. The Bayesian spam filters that everyone has been talking about seem promising. Some system involving only accepting messages signed by trusted sources may also be possible. Of course, you can't list every source you would like to accept mail from, so a system like this may take some hard thought.

      Anyway, we may not find a perfect solution to the spam problem immediately, but my point is that government regulation is A Bad Idea.

  2. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where's the FTC's national "Do Not Spam" list?

  3. Could this be used... by inode_buddha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    to set legal precedent for effective anti-spam regulations?

    --
    C|N>K
  4. Suing would be an admission... by program21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The DMA suing would basically be an admission that they use unethical tactics.
    From from what I've read, this doesn't say that they can't call, only that can't call if the number they are calling is on the Do Not Call list (and also the Caller ID stuff, which is secondary).
    Frankly, I don't see how this would in any way affect 'buying oppurtunities', as the list would be opt-in, and so anyone on that list DOESN'T want to hear from telemarketers; it's actually better for the marketers since they have a greater chance of reaching someone who might be their product.

    --
    This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
  5. how about by Sad+Loser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    doing the same for the Direct Marketing Association as we have for the self styled 'spam king'
    Details here

    --
    Humorous signatures are over-rated.
  6. It's Run by the DMA by mashie · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

  7. Hey, let's help out! by Shoten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What say we all get together and DoS DMA's infrastructure while this is in consideration? After all, if we were to keep calling them incessantly (and emailing, and whatever else we can do), it would certainly be an elegant form of vengeance, particularly if it impeded their ability to fight the FTC on this one. Don't forget to get the law firm that is "of counsel" to them in this matter :)

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  8. Re:And They Charge You $5 by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Only if you do it online - if you actually send them snailmail, it's free. On the face of it, that seems sorta dumb (it must cost them >>> more to process a letter than the results of a web form), but if they made it too easy to sign up for the list, too many people might do so.

    That being said, you should remember that, overall, direct marketers don't want to waste their time and money contacting you if you _really_ don't want to buy. Their hope is that some people who might say "I want off the list" will actually buy, when they're called or mailed.

  9. FTC timeline by nuntius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the FTC site: (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/)

    "Once the Commission gets Congressional approval for funding, it will begin implementing the registry. Consumers will be able to begin signing up for the national "do not call" registry about four months later. About three months after that, the FTC will begin enforcing the registry, and consumers who have signed up will start receiving fewer calls. Consumers will be able to register for free online or by calling a toll-free number. The Web address and phone number for registration will be posted on this site when they are determined."

  10. the "go away" mat by mr.+methane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not sure if other companies are offering it, but my local telco offers a service which intercepts any calls with invalid caller ID ("out of area") and requests that the person identify themself, and then calls me up to ask whether I want the call or not.

    Before I got it, even with unlisted numbers, I was getting 2-3 calls a day. Now, if I get one per month, it's unusual. The rest hang up when they get the intercept. (The rare in-duh-vidual who does persist gets an earful that will hopefully make them quit on the spot)

    (I can also create PIN numbers for myself, spouse, etc. that allow us to bypass the system when we're calling from out of the country or the like)

    I think it's about six bucks a month.

    1. Re:the "go away" mat by yog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Verizon offers call intercept for $5/month, which sounds like what you have. I wonder however if it's really worth $60/year.

      I've had pretty good luck by politely requesting: "Add this number to your no-call list"; so far, every telemarketer has understood this request. Some of them have read me a warning that it will take X weeks to propagate.

      My 2-3 telemarketing calls per day have decreased to perhaps one or two per month, mostly these recorded pitches for satellite dish sales and Disneyland vacations. I have taken to writing down the toll free numbers, calling them up and making the no-call request.

      One problem I've heard mentioned about a national no-solicitation law is that non-profits will get lumped in. Also, during election season I got a million recorded and live calls; I don't like'em but I can understand why they do them. Perhaps there should be a check-box for what kind of organizations you want excluded.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  11. Re:Barrier to Entry by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For that kind of volume, I wouldn't imagine you'd use the switched telephone network. You'd probably use a 1-800 number in the US and have it route over private leased trunks to your call center(s). Just guessing, though.

    My previous employer had a branch office in Asia, and one time I checked our phone bill. After that, I didn't want to see it any more.

    --

    I write in my journal
  12. Re:Telezapper... by Woogiemonger · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I know no one wants to give the phone company more money, but my parents finally decided to go for Verizon's "call-intercept" after enough debate, at $5 a month. Incoming callers who block their numbers from being identified are screened..here's the description:

    "Screens unidentified calls and lets you handle them however you like. Works with Caller ID, prompting unidentified callers to announce who they are before your phone rings."

    So anyway, it's apparently been working great. They used to get 5-10 calls a day at all hours. It's been a month since they signed up, and so far they get none from what I've heard. Could be a solution to telemarketing, although I don't like the fact that we have to pay for protection. I'd rather let the telemarketers pay fines, and maybe throw them in jail.
  13. Missouri already has this. 99.9% effective! by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Missouri Do not call list

    This has been in effect for a while and they even follow up on complaints.

    I VERY rarely get unsolicited calls anymore. Usually when I do, they are charities asking for money.

    I still get junk faxes at 2am on occassion and according to this I'm screwed.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  14. Colorado do-not-call list by Eric+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The telemarketers sued over the recently created Colorado do-not-call list, too. They apparently don't even act in their own rational self interest! Surely it would be a benefit to them, saving them time and money, to be able to easily avoid calling people who they know will not buy the products or services they are selling.

    Or do telemarketers get paid based on the number of calls made, without regard to the number of actual sales? I can't imagine any of their clients would be willing to pay on such a basis, but I guess stranger things have happened.

  15. Has anybody noticed. . . by Lagrange5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anybody noticed that telemarketers are already making evasive maneuvers to elude the "please do not call me again" warning?

    Sample:

    [phone rings]
    Me: "Hello?"
    Telemarketer: "Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
    M: "Sorry--"
    T: [interrupts] "OkaythenI'llcallbacksomeothertimethankyouforyourt imegoodbye."
    [click]

    As long as they can "complete the call" and hang up before you can identify them and make that "do not call" demand, they simply put you back in the call carousel for the next round of pitches. They want to preserve you as a potential resource. All they're looking for is the tiniest negative reaction to trigger that defensive response.

    A good countermove is to engage the caller first. Make them jump through your hoops.

    Sample:

    [phone rings]
    Me: "Hello?"
    Telemarketer: ""Yes, I just know you'll be pleased with our offer of Product Y."
    M: "Can I ask you two questions?"
    T: "Sure."
    M: "What company do you represent?"
    T: "Company X."
    M: [quickly] "Put me on your do-not-call list immediately. Can you do that for me? I do not want to receive any more calls from your company."

    Write the company name down and the time of the call. Get the caller to spell it out if you're not sure. Keep a list of these calls available whenever the phone rings.

    Solicitors are required by law to identify themselves clearly, and to comply with any "do not call" demand. One by one, they can be made to comply.

    --
    "Folks just call him Buckethead." -- Les Claypool
  16. Dom't forget that YOU need to be careful. by _LORAX_ · · Score: 3, Interesting


    1) Never give your phone number out at the cash register. I can't beleive the number of people that will give thier number, that makes a legitimate buisness relationship and they can call for another year and harass you.

    2) "Take me off your list" and "I don't ever want to receive a call from this marketing company either"

    3) They are required to provide you with name and contact information if asked. If you are on a DNC list demade the info and tkae the 2 minutes to fill out the web form that most states have.

    As for the charities and political calls. Sorry, the Supreme Court has always help political and non-commercial speeach with high reguard ( as we all would hope ).

    Since I have been on the NY DNC list I have received only a few annoying telemarketing calls and those were from people that disreguarded my previous attempt to legaly make them stop calling. They have since stoped since I filed a protest with NYS. Now if I could only get the Damm Red Cross to stop calling.

  17. Why the exemption for charities? by jbayes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is it that these things always contain a loophole for charities? Is it really that important that charities be able to harrass people who have already expressed a preference not to be interrupted during dinner?

    While I would much rather see a law saying that telemarketing lists must be opt-in only, I'm willing to settle for an enforced opt-out list, as long as that list has:

    • A very long expiry period. Five years is acceptable; one year is not.
    • Companies with which I have done business are allowed to call me, as long as I have not requested that they not do so. Other than those, no other companies are allowed to call.
    • No exemption for charities. As another poster pointed out, these loopholes just invite calls from "Bob's Aluminum Siding, Oh And We Feed The Orphans Too" companies. Besides, charity calls are no less distracting than other telemarketers; they should be treated similarly.
    • Substantial penalties for violating the rules. If private citizens are expected to take care of enforcement, then they should be awarded sums sufficient to make it worth their while to prosecute.

    I've tried suing under California's telemarketing laws before, and I found out that they are next to useless. So, legislators, please pass useful, enforceable anti-telemarketing laws, or don't pass any at all.

    --

    "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

  18. An explanation (from a someone who worked on this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    - First off - It was years ago, I'm a better person now and the technology has changed a little.

    1 - The company has a large database with your name, address, phone no., financial stuff etc.

    2 - They decide to run a campaign - so a bunch of marketing type boffins come up with a profile. You run the profile through a database with the info and come back with 100 "close" matches - The marketing people then relax the formerly tight profile until you get about 10,000.

    3 - The dataset is loaded into another table (btw this was all Oracle and something called "Genesys", RS6000 and AIX (yuck) back in the day when I did it)

    4 - Drag in 20 drones and then dial 25 numbers (because idle drones are a waste) - If you get 21 "pick ups" then route 20 calls to the 20 drones and keep the "pick up" for a few seconds - If one of the drones gets disconnected - route it.

    5 - EVERYTHING is recorded - the software can tell with 90% certainty it has reached a machine and then drops that call (cant remember how that one works) - but if you answer the call and get dropped (no drone avail) - You WILL go back in the queue next day - and chances are will be called around the same time. (You were in after all)

    6 - Drones rattle through a script and will quite gladly hang up if you say you are not interested.

    - Oh, I did all this with a financial company which never cold called and only "re-contacted" previous customers.