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."
Loosely related, but you can currently get off Junk mail lists through a similar method.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
to set legal precedent for effective anti-spam regulations?
C|N>K
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.
Finally a list where you can post "ME TOO!!!" and it actually MATTERS!
"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. "
I'd love that. I'd report my address as *@*.*
"Derp de derp."
The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities
Good grief! Can you the ultimate evil company's board of directors?
CEO, EvilCo: Satan himself
VP of Intellectual Property, West Coast: Jack Valenti
VP of Intellectual Property, East Coast: Hilary Rosen
VP of Sales and Marketing: The Direct Marketing Association
CFO: David Skilling
VP of Getting Royally Screwed Every Time Shit Goes Down: The customer.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
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
/.'s 10 Millionth
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.
I originally read that as "The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue U.S. consumers for the potential loss of buying opportunities." and was remarkably unshocked :)
I'll call you if I want something your service offers. To quote one of my parents "We don't do business over the phone" (unless we made the call).
Is
"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities." the funniest sentence ever?
"But we wanted to offer them a once in a lifetime chance!!!!!"
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.
As with every other law, I'm sure the lobbyists will make sure that we'll still get our fair share of calls from "legitamized" companies.
From the FTC website (emphasis added):
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers a choice about whether they want to receive most telemarketing calls. Consumers soon will be able to put their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry.
We'll see exactly how it holds up...
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.
On a related note:
I grabbed one of those Telezappers while I was waiting in line at Staples last week buying a UPC. Danged if the silly thing doesn't work.
It emits the three tones that the phone company plays when you dial an out of service phone number. Everyone hears it when I answer any call - but the cool part is listening to the auto-dialers automatically hangup when they "hear" it.
There ought to be some way to hack together a similar machine using an old voice modem and some sort Tone controller - kind of a hybrid box for getting long distance phone calls for free. (Anyone else remember those?)
In illa quae ultra sunt
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.
DON'T LOSE OUT!
= cmdrtaco@slashdot.org
The FTC is about to take away your ability to recieve great offers and buying opportunities through email.
Stop them before they stop you!
For a small donation of only $10, you can help fund the fight against unwanted government regulation in direct marketing.
Remember that only you can make a difference.
You have received this mail because you indicated that you wanted to receive promotional offers of this kind. If you no longer wish to receive mail like this, please click this link:
http://www.spamhaus.com/addressverifier.pl?adress
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.
Next: Stalker sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife the opportunity to be harassed mercilessly.
Moo
You mean that the "remove me" link in spams isn't sufficient?
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.
Fight Spammers!
The "charity" loophole will end up VERY abused...
"Hi, Fred here, from Fred's Aluminum Siding Non-Profit Shell Corporation and Charity. I'd like to talk to you about how 0.0001% of every purchase you make through us goes directly to feed starving, aluminum-siding-less children in South Africa..."
Why not? It works for companies that want to buy their own personal politician... Does anyone really suspect ANY sane politician (I didn't say "ethical", just "sane") would dare take a stand against a scheme that could turn around and attack their major source of campaign financing?
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.
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.
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."
Ok, maybe you don't actually want the spam, but you want that included with your regular mail. The incremental costs to the postal service of processing the spam snail mail is small, allowing it to tackle high fixed costs of maintaining daily delivery. Unlike email spam, which RAISES the costs of your service, snail mail spam DECREASES the costs of your service. No spam snail mail and first class postage would cost a lot more.
paintball
This is a great idea. Texas did something like this a year or 2 ago, and I signed up. It cost a couple bucks, but it was worth it. We used to get at least half a dozen calls a day from telemarketers, and now we only get maybe 2 or 3 a week. And those are from charities, time-warner cable (since we already have a "business relationship" with them), and good ol' Gee Dubya (during election time).
I don't want call from those people either, but at least it's a hell of a lot better now than before. And definitely worth the $2.
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.
I'm from Missouri, we've had a do not call list for a couple of years. It has some exceptions in it, for instance charities, the local phone company, and businesses you've done business with before (banks abuse this provision a lot).
On the whole it works pretty good. The State Attorney General takes on a few abusers every year and almost completely recovers the cost of the service. In my opinion, it's one of the better government programs out there. I'm satisfied with the results.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
to quote the article, A company can call someone on the list if that person has bought, leased or rented something from the seller within 18 months. Telemarketers also can call consumers if they have inquired or applied for something during the last three months.
If you read between the lines, you might find that there are certain companies that can easily still call you, even if you register. I bet, for instance, that AOL/TW can simply restructure their telemarketting, and get away with calling anyone still. Do you really think you can casually go without buying anything from AOL/TW for 18 months? That's a long time, for such a large company.
seems to me this will mean that larger corporations will still be able to call you, since they will have sold you something in the last 18 months, whereas smaller companies that do not have the product diversity or proliferation will not be able to. I would not at all be suprized to find AOL/TW, Disney, Micrsoft, or folks along those lines behind this regulation.
of course, I'm feeling pretty conspiracy-theoristic (like that word?) today.
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.
Good point about the $5.
By the way, the response rate that snail mail requires is astonishingly low. My sister works in the marketing department of a major catalog company - they consider a 2% response rate excellent.
So if you live with someone who complains about all the catalogs but still buys from time to time, tell them this: every time they buy from a catalog they are voting to have 50 more sent to them.
Another interesting tidbit - list exchange. You know that buying from Lemurs Unlimited gets you on the mailing list of Ferrets Forever, Gerbils by Mail, and HamsterConnection. The way this works is that catalogs "rent" lists to each other. So Catalog B rents 10,000 names from Catalog A with the restriction that they can only mail to them for a certain period of time. If a rented name responds to Catalog B, B is allowed to keep mailing them. If they don't, they must stop mailing after the designated period. This is done not for spam prevention but to keep competition for good customers $ under control.
What's amusing is the way this in enforced. When Catalog A rents the list of names, they seed it with a few address of their own employees, or PO boxes, etc. They know that these customers won't respond, since they're fake. If Catalog B keeps mailing after the rental period, they start a fuss and sometimes sue.
And, yes, my sister does feel a little guilty about her job. In fact, she's quitting soon and going to grad school...
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.
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
The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.
So now we need to get a national "do not sue on my behalf" list before we can get a national "I don't want a fucking Disney vacation, you worthless low-life answering machine spamming piece of scum" list? Yeah, I know, then the lawyers will sue because of the "potential loss of lawsuit opportunities." How about just a "Go to hell, DMA!" list? "Potential loss of buying opportunities?" Wouldn't that apply to the time that is wasted by telemarketers trying to sell me something I don't want when I could be researching or buying something I do want? Can I sue the DMA for causing this "potential loss of buying opportunities?"
Heh.
Still, it's fun to tell the telemarketer that this is precisely what you were doing, and listen to them squirm.
TM (cheerfully): Hi, Mr. Yog, I'm Fred Loser from AT&T. How are you today?
You (panting slightly): Dammit, I was just having sex with my wife!
TM: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Is there a better time when I could call you back?
You: Well, you've already interrupted me. It's going to take a while to get worked up again.
TM (sounding uncomfortable): We'll call you back tomorrow; will you be home around this time?
You: I only answered because my great-uncle is in surgery right now; we're waiting to see if he survived the operation.
TM (running out of scripted responses): I'll call back another time.
You: No, I want to hear your entire sales pitch. (start panting heavily; in the background a woman starts moaning.)
TM: Uh...
etc.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
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?
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.
We can just give'em a good slashdottin'.
I always say "I do not do business with people who call my house." This even goes for charities. I do not donate to organizations that call me.
...
At first I thought this wouldn't work, but I've actually had a reduction in calls (that is, no repeats) and I almost always get apologies.
Here as of late I've just been having fun with the telemarketers, since they're not as frequent as they used to be.
RING
RING
ME: Hello?
HER: Yes, I'm with (she said the name of some glasswork and door company) and we're calling to see if you would be interested in new windows for your home. Have you considered having new windows installed?
ME: I don't have windows. I live in a dog house.
HER: *giggle* Very funny, sir.
ME: I don't think it's very funny at all.
HER:
ME: You think being homeless is funny?
HER: *CLICK*
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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?
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.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Has anybody noticed that telemarketers are already making evasive maneuvers to elude the "please do not call me again" warning?
t imegoodbye."
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'llcallbacksomeothertimethankyouforyour
[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
Sadly, both spammers and telemarketers are pretty much totally morally bankrupt people - both buisnesses are based on the idea that if you bug someone enough, they'll give you money to go away.
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.
bethenco wrote:
> As for the issue of outlawing spam, here's another way of looking at. If a computer is setup
> to accept connections over the network and runs software that relays or saves electronic messages
> sent to it, then it's fair game. The owner of the machine has set it up that way with the
> knowledge that they have no control over what signals might be coming down that cable. When
> designing any sort of system that involves machines under the control of different people, we
> have to assume that if the system is in any way vulnerable to malicious or abusive uses, those
> uses will be exploited. We can't rely on the government to hold together broken security.
Just like when we take those machines with four wheels and internal combustion engines down the road, we do so with the knowledge that we have no control over the sobriety, state of mind, courtesy, or experience of the other drivers. In fact, we have to assume that some of them are going to be drunk and try to kill us. So do we just let the drunks and reckless drivers kill people, and blame it on a fault of automotive security (steering wheels let cars be driven into other cars)?
Sorry, but if you "children" can't be civil, daddy (government) is going to have to lay down the law to keep the peace. In fact, that is one of the few decent reasons to have a government: so civilization doesn't turn into a bunch of idiots clubbing each other to death. (Note: this is commonly deemed to be undesirable.)
If people can't discipline themselves to maintain appropriate speeds, drive safely, and stay sober, awake, and attentive throughout the driving process; speed limits, fines, etc. get imposed to tone down the death count. Similarly, if greedy gluts can't quit monopolizing the world's lines of person to person communcation (phone, snail mail, and email) to feed their greed; the government is going to have to take some kind of measures to keep them open for their intended purpose.
Personally, I would rather the government be kept far from the internet. But that is ceasing to be an option, thanks to leaches that make millions and build mansions out of stuffing the email system full of horrible junk. If you don't like the government messing with the internet, go thank the spam kings and the slimy pyramid schemers who don't know how to behave.
"What do you think Mothra would do?"
Moll, "Mosura" 1996
Not sure what to make of this. I work in the telecommunications industry installing and programming Predictive Dialers and CTI systems for call centers. I can however give thoughts on whether or not a no-call list will do much.
I am on the no call list in Georgia and it has helped some with the reputable marketers. Where this isn't going to help is the small mom and pop shops calling you (which is the majority).
The way it works is there are hundreds of fly by night call centers that rent out their agents on a per call basis. Most of these call centers are cheap, poorly run, follow no laws, and in general bill the business for each call. They set up shop, hire out 30 redneck house wives, run for a few months, then shut down and do it again elsewhere.
Whether or not this will help will depend on a few things.
1: The ability of the policing body to act quickly. If there is a 2 month delay the offending call center is probrably changed or gone and will never get fined.
2: The ability to obtain the records of who the call centers customers are and which customer the call was placed for. If they never fine the companies that actually "purchased" the call then the practice will go unabated.
The other problem is the part about if they have already done business with you. If the call center has 20 customers they are placing calls for, and you have bought something from 1 of them, they may claim that status. I know most of you are thinking "I haven't bought anything from these small places". Keep in mind that a call center may have customers ranging from the Mortgage company trying to get your business all the way to the Phone Company you use (and yes, 90% of BabyBell calls are outsourced to outside call centers).
So chances are this No Call list won't make as much difference as most people think.
Oh Yeah, this should appease the people here.....99% of Call Centers are Windows based. Databases, Web Servers, Phone Systems, Desktops, You name it. No Linux at all!
EtOH
(hope this doesn't get me fired)
You can sign up online for free (they send a letter of acknowledgement in the post) and it is backed by legislation. It isn't perfect, but I reckon that after a few months the number of unwanted calls dropped by more than 90%.
Charities are not excempt, and the only people who can legitimately still call you are companies with whom you have previously done business.
There are similar schemes for snail mail and fax junk which also seem to work well. They also have an email one, but that's a bit pointless since most spam comes from outside the UK.
In summary, I'm very happy with the system and I hope that those of you in more backward countries get a similar system soon ;-).