Slashdot Mirror
Tauzin To Delay National "Do Not Call" List
akb writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Billy Tauzin (R, LA), powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has told the FTC that he will block their request for funding for the national do-not-call list in order to review the plan. A spokesman said Tauzin does not oppose the creation of the do-not-call list but is concerned with giving the FTC carte-blanche and would like to clarify what the role of the FCC is in the matter. The FTC had hoped the do-not-call list would be implemented by the middle of this year, they said delay in the funding proposal would push implementation back at least 6 months."
A spokesman said Tauzin does not oppose the creation of the do-not-call list but is concerned with giving the FTC carte-blanche and would like to clarify what the role of the FCC is in the matter
Sure... don't believe everything a politician says.
It's much more politically feasable to say "I just need to check on the FTC powers" then to say
"My funders oppose the do-not-call list".
Tauzin is not wanting to block the do-not-call list. He wants to make sure that it is done the first time correctly. Taking 6 months now to make sure that it starts out right will be a ton better then needing years later to correct issues with the call list.
Tauzin is also concerned about the overlapping jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC. If the jurisdictional issues aren't dealt with before hand we might end up with 2 do-not-call lists or a prohibitive amount of regulation for companies to deal with.
If this do-not-call list is going to work, we must stop and make sure that this is being implemented in the most effective manner.
-Brent
To say it plainly: In the current form, a credit card company could call you even if you're on the do-not-call list. Once the FCC is in the picture, that credit card company is also blocked from calling.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
If they get delayed by two weeks, they'll miss the interim funding bill at the end of this month. If that happens, they have to wait until the next funding bill at the beginning of the fiscal year, in six months.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
C'mon, now who really profits from telemarketing? <cough>#2</cough>
It's just a coincidence, people.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The title uses the word "delay", the spokesperson's statment saying Tauzin doesn't oppose the d-n-c list is the 2nd sentence, the word "block" is applied to the funding the same as in WP article.
What is misleading?
...to investigate it now and block it if it doesn't pass muster?
This story would sound reasonable, except that there is another story in which the facts are easier to check: Telephone Price Wars Called Off. The story says that the long distance companies are losing money and need to raise their rates. I think the truth is that providing long-distance services has become cheaper, and they are only trying to squeeze the customers. Why do I think that? Look at BigZoo. That company is able to make a profit at 2.9 cents per minute and 75 cents per month.
If you begin to doubt the "telephone companies are poor" story, then it is likely that you will doubt the "Billy Tauzin is only thinking of how to manage this best" story.
Here is a southern Repbulican man who, even though he is an adult, is still called by the diminutive name "Billy". Is is possible that he would take $16,250 to slow the passage of extremely popular legislation while he tries to stop it? Has such a thing ever happened before? Or, is it true that Billy is taking an intellectual interest in the bill?
Did this whole idea of having a do-not-call list jump into reality last week? No, it has been around for a long time. Billy Tauzin could have "studied" it before.
A lot of newspaper stories are really paid advertisements for a point of view the payers want you to believe.
As a resident of Massachusetts, I will now take this moment to laugh in your collective faces.
*laughs*
That is all.
I caught a few minutes of the committee on C-SPAN this morning. Tauzin sure sounded like he was trying to get a reasonable understanding of how FTC's work was being done, and how it might mesh with the FCC.
What struck me was their budget for this program -- $16 Million. I dunno - is it just me, or does $16M sound like a lot of money for a relatively simple database? (Or am I mistaken about the database being simple?)
> It's much more politically feasable to say "I just need to check on the FTC powers" then to say "My funders oppose the do-not-call list".
Voters' votes, donors' funds?
Politics is one hell of an optimization problem.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We already have a no-call list in Colorado, and guess what the first thing that happened is? Companies had to pay for the list, and so the companies that couldn't pay couldn't call anyone. Also, Qwest(Ride a light? But Gandalf, how am I to find this light?) managed to get themselves out of having to use the list. Who knows what companies will slide out of this if it is used across the US?
"... is it just me, or does $16M sound like a lot of money for a relatively simple database?"
Especially since I would be willing to do it for $250,000, no, make that $500,000.
Place your bids now. We can send them to Billy's office, and show the price for the fraud it really is.
Carnivore and DMCA brought to you by Bill Clinton and Al Gore
SSSCA/CBDTPA brought to you by Fritz Hollings
Face it, when money talks in our dictatorship-I-mean-democratic republic, legislators tend to listen. There are only two things that can be done, let the states hold their Congresscritters accountable criminally and civilly so that even if the feds don't take action, the states are free to do so. Then reduce the size of the government so that the average corporation won't get anything from lobbying. The **AA would stop lobbying overnight if the courts took a hardline, strict constructionist interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
You get the kind of government you vote for. Are you whiners really voting for the right party (LP)? Thought not.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
The credit-rating agencies jointly offer a service designed to prevent pre-approved credit card offers from being sent. As you probably have heard, these offers can be a security risk if someone pilfers one and fills it out with their address (why the credit card companies don't use better security is beyond me).
More information from FTC.
Note this is a junk mail problem, lasts just 2 years, and won't suppress offers from companies that do not use the credit-rating agencies -- but the call is automated and really fast. The FTC also lists the addresses for DMA junk mail and telemarketing opt-outs.
Consider the specifications of the system that will hold do-not-call information. Everyone who doesn't want their telephone system abused will make one entry into the database every time they change their telephone number. I figure, on average, one entry every two years.
I've got a 386SX-16 computer around somewhere. That's probably overkill. Looks like I'll be making a profit on my $500,000 bid.
Saw a congressional discussion about this on CPAN satellite channel last night. Programmers would recognize that those talking are not serious about understanding and solving problems.
So at an average of two calls per day from people changing phone numbers, that bid would pay you to answer 410,000 calls per day? Okay, only 1/3 population would sign up, but 130,000 calls per day is still quite hefty.
And that wouldn't even cover the enquiries from telemarketers wanting to check a phone number. Suppose you made an internet form to do so, you'd still need a fair few Oracle licenses, and a Solaris server or two.
You wouldn't be able to publish the list; it's necessary for privacy that the telemarketer needs to ask "is 01291 272 272 okay to call", rather than just "tell me who I can't call"
"So at an average of two calls per day from people changing phone numbers."
Sorry, I meant to say "one call per two years", which is what the calculations are based upon
I don't understand why the telemarketing lobby is against the do-not-call list. Surely, it is an effective way of identifying the least receptive segment of the population and eliminating them from their advertising budget.
Won't this result in more hits for less effort, or am I missing something blindingly obvious?
BTW, here in the UK we have national do-not-call, do-not-mail and do-not-fax opt-out lists, and I'm on all three. So far, the DNC list seems to be working, but I still seem to get lots of junk mail for some reason. Oh, and I don't actually have a fax, but those telemarketers are so terribly cunning I though it best to cover all the bases...
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
I'd write to the various Congresscritters and ask them to delay the do-not-call list while studying ways to mutate it into a please-call-me-list
Before you flame me, think about it for a minute. If you're walking down the street, do I have the right to stop you while I try to sell you something? I don't think so. What I can do is put up a booth (local laws permitting) and hope you stop because you find it interesting. Telesales is exactly like that. You're at home, eating dinner or whatever, and the phone rings. The telesales company is betting that you'll stop whatever you're doing and pick it up.
And before anyone says it, TV ads are not the same. The TV equivalent of telesales would be where the TV suddenly turns itself on, or switches the channel, in order to show an ad.
Opting-out is complete bat puckey and whoever invented it needs a serious whack with a cluestick. It should be opt-in, and none of that "you indicated to one of our affiliates that you wanted to receive ads" crap either... That's just salesdroid-speak for "we copied their list in return for giving them ours"...
Better start reading those EULAs (Phone co, ISP, M$, whatever) carefully - before long there'll be a paragraph that reads:
"By using this product I hereby drop my name from all national and state do-not-call lists and will expect to get annoying phone calls and email at all times of day or night."
I'm guessing that the call center would be entirely automated. There are no decisions to be made. Touch-tone entries would be enough.
I would have those people leave their address and phone number, and have transcribers send them a form to fill out.
My understanding is that the $16 million is just for setting up the system. There would, of course, be a yearly cost.
Tauzin....one of the most paid off politicians in history! Once again, he shows how little he cares about the people who put him in office..and how much he cares about the telemarketing industry who helpe greas his pockets...