Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
The Do Not Call list is a good step in the right direction, but I am paying for my phone and I don't want any calls from anyone unless I give them my phone number. There for why should it matter if it is a sales call or a charity call, they both should not be allowed to call me at home.
Two government agencies cooperating to implement a consumer-popular policy?
Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?
paintball
Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.
I guess that's what happens when an entire nation faces down an association with no lobbying skills. Now if we could just be this effective on a few of the slightly more important issues like civil rights, pre-emptive wars, and so forth.
Since the phone line is paid for by the person receiving the call this is a problem of communication, not trade. If the FCC had this job from the get-go maybe the exemption for charities and political groups wouldn't have been considered. After all the FTC has no authority over those groups.
I'm no fan of W but this makes sense.
From the New York Times(no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."
According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.
Why do I h8 apple?
One of the very few instances of a beuracracy not getting in its own way. I suppose, if you get enough people angry, the government can still be on the people's side. Happy dance!
Now if we can hurry up and get that 1st ammendment case overruled...
Seriously, though, high marks for pretty much everyone involved in this one.
Thomas Galvin
The big argument against the do-not-call list has been the violation of free speech on the part of the solicitors.
That might make sense. But, what about the right to not listen if we so choose?
I think the real argument is that the solicitors will lose potential money, due to having a smaller call list. However, there is no law against that.
Plus, why limit the do-not-call list to just those involved in commercial purposes. If I don't want to hear from solicitors, that includes people raising money for political and non-profit purposes. Whether or not they are commerical, they are still looking for money.
Urantian -- and proud of it!
Even free speach has it's bounds. For example, I believe that I have the right to kick protestors Off my private property. Since my telephone is on my private property I should think that the same rules apply.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
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.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
And you shall know that the end times have arrived because US government agencies shall cooperate to implement things the tax payers actually want! And Apple shall have the fastest computers available! Linux will go mainstream! BeOS will come back from the dead! Behold and repent for surely we have reached the end of times!
(Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)
-AX
^I'm with stupid.^
I'm unplugging the phone and going back to carrier pigeons.
A First Amendment challenge will (most likely) fail. There's already been several cases that have ruled commercial speech not protected under the First Amendment.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
If you define evil as unfeeling and not worried about morality, then about 8/10 or 80% of the companies out there are evil.
(I personally praise the other 20%)
So I don't get what you're talking about. It's not about what's helping the good of humanity for those big corporations. It's about how to better line their wallet.
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
The bold print giveth, and the fine print taketh away
I think of this list as just saving these stupid people the time of calling me and making me mad and not selling anything anyway.
I mean for to many years now they have called me, made me mad and didnt sell a damn thing.
I can tell them right now they have zero fucking chance of selling me anything. I have never bought anything over the pohne, I have never even listened so someone telling me I might have won a trip or money, I tell them to leave me alone.
So why they would be so upset I want to be on a list that tells them not to bother is crazy.
I mean I still see what they are saying, I just think it stupid and alot of other people out there probaly think the same thing, and know they are never going to buy any of there stupid shit anyway.
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.
Like what I said? You might like my music
The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway. The amount of time and money telemarketers will save just by not having to call those people has got to be substantial. Someone who hasn't gone to the trouble of putting themselves on the do not call list is almost certainly going to be much more receptive to an unsolicited sales pitch.
The government is doing telemarketers a huge favor, while at the same time benefitting the general public. It's a win-win situation. What's the problem?
His phone number is on the list!
That, and there's all those phone calls he's been getting from consumers who wanted to show what tehy could with the "rights" he was upholding.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
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?
1) Write a bot that adds one number at a time to the DNC list, starting with 000-000-0000 and ending in 999-999-9999.
2) Autoresponder bot at e-mail address will respond to DNC email, confirming you want the number on the list
3) ???
4) Rejoice! EVERYONE is now on the DNC list.
For added flavor, use plenty more e-mail addresses, seperate the task among groups and geographic regions, etc.
A quick Google search turns up the history. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both sides of the issue of Corporate Personhood.
The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Very good! However, this is still not a completely settled issue. The Supreme Court has been very slow to allow any restriction of truthful speech, even commercial, based upon content -- as in, they've never done so except with regard to pornography (which they seem to be backing away from over time). At the same time, they have recognized a right to privacy (abortion clinic cases) and noted the right to free association.
The end result I'd like to see is a list various categories which I can elect to receive or not receive (e.g. commercial, religious, charitable cash, charitable other, political). I don't know how to fit this into the legal landscape, but I'd ban all but charitable other from my house. (I'm willing to give old clothes to charity, and that is about it.)
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
While I agree with your post in spirit, I will contest it.
If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out
Monopoly laws work to the advantage of many corporations, who would not exist without competition.
corporate taxes would be nullified,
This is in blatant contrast to your last statement. If "the people" run the government, why are we taxed? Why aren't businesses the only ones taxed? Because *someone* has to pay for government if we want it, and even if corporations ran the government, they'd still pay their taxes.
companies would have the right to vote
The assumption is that companies pay representatives to vote how the company wants them to. They don't need regular balloting like citizens have, if that's the case.
environmental protections would go away
Not necessarily. There are many corporations who would destroy the world with their irresponsibility, but most corporations realize at some level that if they ruin the environment, they lose their market, their workforce, and their customers.
corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.
The assumption is that they already are, with a few freak occurences. This is because of the high cost of lawyers and law suits in general. So protection from the public in lawsuits isn't strictly needed. On the other hand, if there were such protections, there is likely to be an uprising to throw out those in power. So they take one for the team, so to speak.
Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.
Sorry, dude, you're going to have to define "evil" to back this up. And just for the record, if someone declared corporations evil and I responded, I'd ask the same of them. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
This is a very important question. Since the First amendment was written, the world has changed. We really need to consider whether speech actually requires both the listener and the speaker. Purely on the grounds of semantics, it doesn't. There is freedom for the speaker only.
However, in the past it has never been considered a problem. You actually have to make a positive effort to buy and read a newspaper, or watch a broadcast. You don't get the same level of choice with telemarkating.
It's a political point that really needs to be cleared up.
I have a sign on my property that forbids trespassing and another one on the front door that forbids solicitation.
A "Do Not Call" list is the equivalent of those signs. Ringing my phone is the same as knocking on my door. CallerID is the same as looking out the window to see who is knocking.
I want all callers to be included. I don't want to hear from charities, politicians, pollsters, or telemarketers. Nobody, period.
I believe that is my right and being an Alabamian, I dare defend my rights.
The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard. They seem to be stretching the right a little to think it includes the right to force it on people.
Exactly the same reasoning would give you the constitutional right to break into a newspaper publisher, and use their printing presses to publish your own newspaper.
When the profit is made to the determent of another person, even a single person, it is immoral.
Peter M. Dodge,
Chief Executive Officer,
LiquidFire Studios
Platinum Linux - www.
...is that the FCC doesn't have to deal with "prevention of free speech", because the telephone is a regulated medium. The FCC can state that the telemarketting firms are not allowed to call people who are paying for telephone lines since the people didn't obtain their phone lines for someone else to use, but for they themselves to use. So, since the telemarketting firm isn't paying for the phone line, they can't legally call on it for unsolicited business purposes.
As far as "Free Speech" goes, they are fully entitled to get a billboard, print a publication, run an ad in a magazine or newspaper, the act of presentation isn't being stopped. The medium is already regulated and has been since inception.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If my telephone is a free-speech public forum, then one could easily argue that anyone should be able to knock on my front door and demand to be allowed into my house to make their sales pitch under the U.S. Constitution. They're not -- and neither is my phone.
Btw, I've heard that not only is the Denver judge's office telephone already on the Do Not Call List, but also that large numbers of people are demanding his home phone so that they can exercise their own First Amendment rights.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here are the office phone numbers for the two state judges that ruled against the Do Not Call list:
Lee R West - (405) 348-0818, Edmond, OK 73003
The 'Honorable' Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: 405-609-5140
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151
and the more recent one:
Judge Edward W. Nottingham
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14
(303) 844-5018
I encourage all Slashdotters to exercise your first ammendment rights, and let them know what you think about their rulings. Hopefully someone will find their home numbers, since telemarketers usually call you at home, and these two firmly believe that everyone should have the right to call you at home anytime they feel like it, even after you've specifically asked them not to.
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.
Obviously, you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody's speech - you can ignore demonstrators on the street, you can say "no thank you" to a person offering you a brochure and keep walking, and you can simply hang up the phone, or ask to be taken off some list you somehow got on.
If you look carefully, the actual problem of telemarketing does not lie in whether speech over the phone lines is any of government's business, and how they can regulate it. The actual problem lies with your local phone service providers selling your personal information to anyone who requests it without your consent. You rightly mention that some people do not mind, or would like to get some types of calls, others none at all. The solution should be an "opt-in" type of system if you'd like your phone number shared for this purpose; otherwise, it should be illegal for phone service providers to share your information without your consent. It's simple and easy! Yet, it's not popular with big corporate interests, not good for campaign contributions, and, therefore, will never come up!
- i doubt it... the telemarketing industry is transient with high employee turnover... and the telemarketing industry does not create consumer need where it does not exist... - what DNC signups will have is peace and quiet, especially during dinner time, along with the ability to work and telecommute from home without interruption... - i would be against the DNC if i were to receive a check from each caller who wasted my time and interrupted my work - heck, i might even listen to a pitch or two... - i relish the day when telemarketers no longer call my home - they are free to call anyone who wants to receive the calls, however... - i'd even be against the DNC if the local phone company provided DNC phone numbers at no cost - that way i'd be able to more easily opt out... - but then there'd be no reason to have a DNC, right?
I'll start off by saying that I think we're actually in agreement, but you'll have to read the whole thing. :) So if I piss you off early, just hang in there.
This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.
Absolutely correct. The argument is frequently misapplied. As in here:
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.
I'll take it again, one at a time.
Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations;
Nope, the First Amendment also says "The right of the people peaceably to assemble" and "the right to petition the government for grievances". Either/both of which can be applied to the right to demonstrate. Also, demonstrations happen in public places. You can't go *inside* IBM's building and demonstrate against them, but you *can* demonstrate on the street outside, which is a public place, publicly owned. My right to not have to listen to the demonstration does not trump the demonstrators' right to demonstrate. If I don't wanna hear it, I should walk away. What if I work for IBM and they're being demonstrated against them? Does my right now get totally trumped? Well, no. Not exactly. As far as rights are concerned, government's satisfied. i still have the choice to leave. As far as my personal choice, do I really want to work for a company that's gonna put me in that situation? Or is the company right, and the demonstrators wrong? I still have the choice.
it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration.
The public place argument stated above should do just as well here. I can say "no" to the guy (and have).
Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech",
Yes, they are. The problem with telephone lines has everything to do with who owns the telephone, the service, and the time that is being spent. More on this later.
like newspapers,
With newspapers, you don't have to read them. You don't have to buy them, and you're not likely to have significant problems for that choice.
TV, books.
Same. You don't have to watch TV, you don't have to read books. Furthermore, you have choices available in what you watch and what you read.
Your next paragraph said more or less these exact things, but less wordy.
Here's the difference. When my 1-month old son is sleeping, and a telemarketer calls, he wakes up my kid. My kid currently requires something like 16 hours of sleep each day, and that telemarketer is taking it from him. Yaddayadayada. More of this. There are all kinds of reasons a person calling me on the phone is disruptive. These same reasons don't apply to other forms of "speech", as you've mentioned. If my kid is sleeping, the TV isn't going to magically turn on and start pushing "VOTE FOR BUSH". Nor is a book going to just jump up, smack my kid awake, and start pouring out with all the reasons I should vote libertarian in this election.
I'm sure you've read all kinds of reasons phone calls are disruptive, and I'll let you use your imagination to identify more yourself. :) The logical solution now is to turn off the ringer. Here's
Like what I said? You might like my music
The flaw in the "broken window fallacy" is that in the absence of the hooligan the extra money spent on glass would not vanish, but would instead be spent elsewhere. Similarly, any money not spent on products advertised by telephone spamming would not vanish, but would (all together now) be spent elsewhere. The money spent on telespamming services themselves would instead be spent on other, legitimate, forms of marketing. Heck, maybe the telespammers themselves could apply their marginal skills to working at inbound call centers, so that when I want to do business on the phone I won't have to wait on hold until I grow a long white beard.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The difference here is that this is an opt-in list (ie, I have to take action to prevent telemarketers from reaching me), as opposed to an opt-out list, where the free speech of telemarketers would be abridged.
I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.
The DNC list is similar. If it were a blanket "no telemarketing" law that placed people on the list unless they personally removed themselves, that would likely be a huge free speech violation. But at the point where I have told them NOT to contact me, they're obliged to cease. The DNC list simply serves as an efficient means of processing my request not to be disturbed. However, it is fundamentally no different on the phone vs. at my door - I have personally requested not to be disturbed, and they are required to honor that request.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Stealing is the *most* successful *buying* method out there -- 0% down, with 0 monthly payments of $0. By your "logic", it ought to be legalized.
What the hell are these people going to do??
There are many professions more honorable and respectable than telephone spamming, such as turning tricks or selling crack.
There are 4 million people - 4 million people - doing these jobs, and when telemarketing goes, their age and skillset does not license itself to easy retraining.
Let them get legitimate jobs. If my two previous suggestions aren't sufficient, I can think of plenty of others.
Even if they are profoundly learning-disabled, and thus stuck with no skills other than talking to people on the phone, they can work for incoming call centers.
Worst of all, no studies have been done at either the Federal or the state level as to the impact of all of this.
The "broken window fallacy" underlying your entire argument has been understood for a century and a half. No need for additional studies.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.