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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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