FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC

Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission will step in and enforce the national Do Not Call list for the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC is coming to the aid of the FTC because of the recent lawsuit filed against the FTC over the list."

Comments

Why get the FCC involved?

[Lord Grey]

Unless I misunderstand something, it seems that the primary complaint from the Denver court was that the no-call list was discriminating. Non-profit and political cold-calling was still allowed under the plan.

Fine. Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Fastball]

Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain,

Then why is it taxed as such?. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear. You can say what you want, but I have the right to not listen. The DNC beautifully expresses my desire to not listen.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[dillon_rinker]

this is discrimination
Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.

And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.

To discriminate means to choose.

If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.

Why wouldn't they comply?

[tessaiga]

I found the following quote particularly interesting:

The Direct Marketing Association, representing more than 70 percent of the telemarketing industry, asked its members last week to abide by the list. Nearly 200 of the largest members have voiced no objection to the request and some have actively pledged to comply, association spokesman Louis Mastria said Monday.

Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this. Effectively it lets them weed out calls to households who don't want their stuff that would waste their call times, and let them focus on spamming people who are more likely to be responsive. Given how much the telemarketing industry is focused on cranking up their purchases-per-minute, it's not surprising that many companies agreed to abide by the list.

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.

It is also the nature of a state of oppression to restrict political speech that disagrees with those in power. This is, iirc, the fundamental reason political speech is protected.

However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

Where I disagree with the Denver court is that I think the do-not-call list should be split according to preference, rather than a blanket rule that applies to all or none, depending on who signs up. I don't mind political and charity phone calls. I can shrug them off. There's these people that call every now and then wanting stuff for the blind, and I don't mind the calls. One of these days, they'll call whenever I'm about to dump a bunch of stuff, and they'll get it. But my wife actually minds these calls because they're intrusive to her. Point is, some people want these calls, and some don't, and if it's going to be an issue with the do-not-call list, then let's let the people signing up for the list decide what calls are allowed and what aren't.

How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights?

[jason.hall]

Can someone explain how this is restricting telemarketers' First Amendment right? They can still "speak" all they want - I just don't want them to speak to me. Does the right to free speech mean there's a REQUIREMENT that they have an audience to listen? An unwilling audience?

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[rgmoore]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them.

It's more logical than you think. One very important subset of the people who don't want the calls are those who don't want them because they work. I don't understand their psychology very well, but there are apparently some people who simply find it very difficult to say no to telemarketers, and those people often find themselves spending a lot of money on things they don't need as a result. OTOH, many of them apparently have no problem with going to a web site to register not to be called in the first place- they only have a problem saying no to a person. If you prevent telemarketers from calling those people, which the DNC should do, then telemarketing will be much less profitable. Of course the telemarketers don't want to stand up and say, "You have to let us call the poor suckers who don't really want to buy from us but can be talked into doing so anyway," so they phrase everything in free speech terms, but that's what the real issue is.