160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List

MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."

Comments

Productive and economically vital?

[mstefan]

I love the form letters that the DMA wants folks to send in to their congressman:

I am opposed to the creation of a national do-not-call list.

I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the destruction of a $700 billion sector of our economy by putting its immense power behind creating, promoting and expanding a national do-not-call list. This list is certain to contain millions of people who might otherwise have become (or already are) satisfied consumers of teleservices products and services, and who we need to survive and grow.

At a time when we are experiencing budget deficits and struggling to emerge from recession, can we afford to risk losing the billions in tax revenues this industry generates, not to mention the millions of jobs it provides?

Professional telemarketers are trained to respect people's right to say "no," hang up, or be permanently taken off of a calling list. In addition, The Direct Marketing Association already has a national do-not--call list and requires all of its members to screen these names from their lists or suffer penalties, including possible expulsion from The DMA.

In my view, the Federal government should not be in the business of destroying this productive, economically vital form of sales communication. It is my sincere hope that the FTC reconsiders this anti-business, anti-competitive, job-killing proposal.

The irony is, if the DMA's DNC was actually effective (and used) by their member organizations, state and federal governments wouldn't be pressured by citizens to implement something like this. They've taken their proverbial mile walk with the inch given them and now they're screaming that it's anti-competitive. I also find it somewhat amusing that they consider minimum wage telemarketing jobs as "productive" and "economically vital".

Easy call list

[Target Drone]

Nonprofit and political calls are exempt

If nonprofits are exempt then can't they just solicit everyone on the do-not-call list?

Suppose I have an unlisted number, then it's unlikely that a charity will be able to get my number (unless someone sells it to them). But if I register with the do-not-call list then I've basically published my phone number for every nonprofit and political party to add to their call list.

what effects will this have on the economy

[Anonymous Coward]

i am one of the many telemarketer haters. but seriously, with the US being in such a shady economical state, what would the side effects of this do not call list have on the existing economy.

telemarketing is a large industry that provides a large number of jobs and serves as a way to increase the revenue of the retail, manufacturing, credit, service, and many other markets.

this part of the idea scares me. however, no more telemarketers waking me up and annoying me also sounds very nice.

Why Is Anyone Exempted?

[limekiller4]

Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?

I mean ...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.

I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.

Why this means nothing.

[big_debacle]

Legitimate marketing companies have maintained and adhered to Do Not Solicit lists for years. Companies that broke the rules will continue to break the rules--including ignoring these lists. Heck, the company I worked for maintained a list of over 3,000,000 Do Not Solicits that it had accumulated over the years.

The law allows political calls, charity calls and calls from someone you do business with or have done business with. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that a majority of the telemarketing calls I receive fall into one of these very broad catagories.

If a company breaks the rules, how are you going to track them down? And if you track them down, what can you do? In the past, all a company has had to do was show that they were making every effort to adhere to the established rules.

If nothing else, perhaps we should all think about the amount of time and money invested in something like this and realize that it's just a phone call. I mean, my phone has a special anti-telemarketer button that came with it--it's that one you press to hang up.

Whats the Libertarian take on all this?

[Tyekanik]

Browsing Slashdot, I've noticed a fair number of the readership are pretty hard-line libertarians; total opposition to government regulations, and fierce protection of privacy being two major qualities I've seen.

The whole direct marketing by phone issue seems to be an area where, with regard to those qualities, you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. If the corprations are unregulated, they'll try and flog stuff to you down the phone day and night. The Market wouldn't seem to work in thia case, as even if 99% of us hang up immediately and boycott the company, the remaining 1% will still provide a customer base the company can get by on. However, if the Feds step in, the companies' freedom goes out the window.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Libertarianism (My views have been pretty well up in the air since Tommy Sheridan destroyed my faith in socialism by being a prick), I was just wondering if any Libertarians here could tell me what their position on this is.

Cheers.

Do-Not-Call lists rock

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I live in CO which implimented a do-not-call list about a year ago. I can say it works damn well. I get almost no unsolicited calls. This is compared to when I visited the family over christmas and was having to hang up on 3-4 telemarketers each day. There were no calls during the elections this year so either there is a difference in the law between states or this stipulation has little impact. The only thing I get are calls from the firefighter and Police fraturaties which are delt with with a simple, "Please put me on your 'do not call' list. Thankyou"

You don't pay, telemarketers do.

[raehl]

The system is generally paid for by charging the telemarketers a fee to give them the list of people they arn't allowed to call. Don't want to pay for the list? Then the state attorny's office just makes you pay with fines instead.

WI has one of these that JUST went effective Jan 1. I signed up in October, when I was getting 2-3 calls between 8 and 11 am every morning and another 2-5 every night. I have received 3 calls since Jan 1 total, 2 hangups and 1 person from the trooper's association. (I don't do contributions on the phone, too many scams where 10% of the money goes to the organization.)

It took me a week to realize I wasn't getting the calls anymore, hard to notice silence, but it is a tremendous difference. Yay for productive legislation.

Now, if anyone can tell me where to sign up for the NO SPAM list, I'll be even happier.

Telemarketing Good for Economy

[beholder77]

I know I'll get modded down for this :)

I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.

Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy

[beholder77]

I agree with you. But thus far, better jobs have not surfaced.

I live in a mining town where the unemployment rate is quite staggering. At this point, any job is worthwhile to these people. This is the same story heard in the east coast (Canada), single resource towns drying up because of lack of employment. These call centers we all hate are keeping these places alive.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people reading this post will be from a larger uban centers. I doubt many of you have seen a town "dry up". Especially one you grew up in, and thought of raising a family in. It's very disheartening. Before you say it, the arguement of "well, just move!" is not entirely useful. You might find the area you live tolerable, but some don't :)

Telemarketers are not evil as MacAndrew pointed out, they're not trying to help you loose weight by intterupting you during supper, they're just making ends meet until something better comes along.

If you have a better solution to high unemployment in small towns that doesn't inconvenience you, please speak up.

Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy

[cliveholloway]

I know I'll get modded down for this :)

I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family. Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.

Right. Let's reword this a little more extremely:

"I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (marketing) of child pornography. I get just as annoyed at child pornographers as everyone else, but these people are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.

"Let them ask if they can take photos of your children, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family."

---

I'm not saying it's as evil as child pornography, but it is still evil. Lack of money is no justification for lack of morality. You have to draw the line somewhere. I suppose mine is a little further over than yours towards respect for an individual's privacy.

.02

cLive ;-)

Exemptions make it not worth my ~$2

[intermodal]

I live in Texas, and not only does it cost ~$2 to sign up, but there's a bunch of confusing exemptions, roughly 6 months delay of activation, and is only available for residential phones. I can get more than $2 enjoyment out of telling off a telemarketer, or out of speaking nothing but German till they get confused and hang up. They generally don't call back after that one. So unless it's going to be free as in beer, and without exemption, I'm not gonna bother unless, as the parent post says, it becomes similarly easy to Mass.'s program, with a plus for no exemptions.

My take on this

[JZ_Tonka]

My interpretation of (and belief in) Libertarianism stems from the notion that one individual or company's freedom ends where it interferes with the freedom of others.

I think telemarketing is one such breach of that boundary, as well as any other type of unsolicited communication, including e-mails and snail mail. As miniscule the amount of time it wastes, dealing with these intrusions is an unwanted effort that people shouldn't have to expend for the sake of someone else's need.

Re:It's cool, but there's one downside

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Here you have to PAY to be on the do-not-call list, which, to me at least, sucks...So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks! "

I think what you're probably paying for is the resources needed to maintain that list. Not sure about where you live, but here in Oregon we can't even keep our schools open. Paying $5 or so (Oregon's cost, not sure what yours is...) doesn't seem like a big deal.

As for having to block them, I see what you're saying but they're rebuttal would be "we make money to keep your costs low." The truth is somewhere in between.

Now you know why I keep my primary communication on the internet. Everybody I know has e-mail, and the vast majority of them are on IM of some sort. I realize that's not going to be a choice for everybody, but it does cut down on the phone traffic.

Since I've cut down on the phone traffic, I only have a cell phone. That means I get caller ID, and a notification when I get voice mail. I don't even jump to get to my phone anymore. It's on silent. When it rings, I read the caller ID and make a choice whether or not to let it go to voice mail. I get around to it eventually. That alone makes telemarketing hard to get through.

Back in the olden days, the phone was something you just had to get to while it was ringing. If you take a more convenient approach like I have, telemarketers aren't so annoying.

Re:1st Amendment

[MacAndrew]

True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.

Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.

The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.

Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)

Violations

[brandonsr]

Do any of the people who get these violated calls see any of that 5,500 dollars?

Re:cell phone?

[Bios_Hakr]

That's $500 if you can get their contact info. If you ask for the name and address of the legal dept of the company placing the call, the guy will likely hang up.

Then you have to convince a court to take the case. From what I remember, this involves time, a filing fee, and more time.

Here's Mine:

[Mandi Walls]

As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database.

I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the continuance of an industry by ignoring the concerns of the public.

At a time when the number of older Americans is going to grow tremendously, their protection from scam artists and con men is more important than providing jobs for the semi-literate scum who interrupt their dinners.

The American economy doesn't need irate consumers. It needs people to stabilize their credit and be responsible with their money. This does not include purchasing magazines, aluminum siding or family portraits from businesses they do not know.

The DMA's half-hearted attempts to appease the American public with their sorry excuse for a do-not-call list has finally been recognized for what it is - a sham. And the public has finally raised their voice and asked the government to devise a more rigorous scheme to curtail the amount of intrusions we must incur simply by having a telephone number.

As a consumer, I can only hope that the Federal goverment will continue to persue these avenues and also address the problem of unsolicited email in the future. Until that time, however, I fully expect the DMA to stand up for the thieves and spammers so that I might also increase the size of my penis by three inches while refinancing my mortgage and protecting my Windows computer from viruses. Being that I have neither a penis, a mortgage, or a computer running Windows, I will rejoice when legislation is passed to finally put an end to unsolicited email, as well.

--mandi

One possible challenge the DMA could mount

[release7]

As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.

Re:It's cool, but there's one downside

[Anonymous Coward]

I much prefer the following method of discouraging telemarketing calls:

When the telemarketer calls, have some fun with him/her. Whoever they ask for, politely but very loudly say "PLEASE HOLD". After a minute, pick up the phone and ask very loudly "ARE YOU STILL THERE?".
The marketer is always there. They can not hang up on a possible sale. Whatever the marketer says in response to your question, loudly say "PLEASE HOLD".

Repeat until the marketer hangs up. I can pretty much guarantee that this will reduce the number of telemarketing calls you get.

I've done it and it works. Now if you'll just send me the small sum of $19.95 (plus shipping) in three easy payments...

It has passed muster multiple times

[DiveX]

Every case challenging the TCPA on constitutional grounds (1st amendment, due process clause, etc) has ultimately held the TCPA's restrictions on faxes and telemarketing calls presents noconstitutional infirmities under First Amendment grounds. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies (in terms of junk faxing) to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.

Texas v. ABF, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (W.D. Tex, 2000)(fax calls)

Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir.1995) aff'g 844 F.Supp. 632 (D. Or.1994)(fax calls)

Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995) (telemarketing calls) cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161 (1995)

Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995) reh'd. 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997)(fax calls)

Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 668 A.2d 1099 (Super. Ct. N.J. 1996) (telemarketing calls).

Come courts have decided otherwsie; an 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge recently ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court). It has been essentially attacked by every authority since. See Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew my faith in our legal system. This decision by the state court was extremely well done and is highly entertaining reading. Also take a look at the US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling. In addition, another Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.

Links:
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/reference/oth er_cases/o lympic-1a.pdf
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/referenc e/other_cases/s t-lou-1a-ua.pdf
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/refere nce/other_cases/D OJAmicusSupportingMissouri.pdf

police stae

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived in Mass, the scariest phone calls are not from telemarketers but from the many "benevolent" police associations thats ask for donations. It always feels like a call from the godfather himself.

They are exempt from this legislation, and they already had my name and there is nothing I can do that can keep them from calling...

More calls, less telemarketers

[Y-Crate]

I was added to the do-not-call list in Tennessee. When it took effect the calls stopped for quite a while.

Then, they began again.

However, now instead of a telemarketer on the other end when I pick up the phone, all I get is a "click" and I am disconnected.

The automated calling systems still call me - more than ever it seems (a DOZEN calls a day is a bit much, dontchathink?) - but now they do not transfer me to a telemarketer, but simply disconnect me.

Their numbers are completely blocked and I cannot find out who they are, but I'm sure even if I did, they would claim they are not actually violating the rules, as they are not talking to me.

DMA's own do not call list is a JOKE!

[l8apex]

DMA provides their own "do not call list" for consumers. Only telemarketers that are members of the DMA and elect to honor the list will actually use the list and not call you. So review their instructions for yourself on how to place yourself on their list:

DMA remove from telemarketing list information

What a scam! they CHARGE $5.00 to accept online submissions, but mail-in requests are free! Now, what acutally costs them more?!?

They actually try to scare you into using the online form by warning that registering by mail takes longer. This convinces me that they not very interested in representing consumer interests.

Bring on the nation-wide do-not-call list!

Re:This kind of regulation tramples liberty

[Steve B]

The government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish.

[DAFFY DUCK] Aha -- PRONOUN TROUBLE! [/DAFFY DUCK]

Certainly, the telemarketers have the right to use their phones as they wish. This right guarantees that they may call one another to their heart's content. However, they do not have the right to appropriate the use of my phone line.