Slashdot Mirror
10th Circuit Says FTC Can Enforce Do Not Call
TCPALaw writes "Reuters is reporting
that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that the FTC can
go ahead with administration and enforcement of the national Do-Not-Call
list, staying a lower court ruling that blocked the FTC from
implementing the list. Now I can sue
those pesky telemarketers .. I have already gotten
3 telemarketing calls to the phone number I put on the national list
since the list went into effect."
Reader jhlund1976 points to the court's decision itself. Note, as
strredwolf does, that this only means the FTC can "run the registry while a
challenge from telemarketers winds its way through the courts." Strredwolf also points to the
all-knowing
Google News link.
So both the FCC and the FTC can enforce the do-not-call list. Personally, I don't care who enforces it as long as they have the power to do so.
we'd just walk 30 miles in the snow to the local light plug, that's what we called power outlets back then. Then we'd run copper wire all the way to our phone, and send some through the line to melt the telco's links between me and them.
It only worked if you tied onions to your shoelaces, cause that was the style at the time...
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
on what (good) news will be brought to us tomorrow by the 11th Circuit.
We had a great decision from the 9th yesterday, and from the 10th today. Can we get the Hatrick?
> If I do the same on my phone and say I only want people who I know or need to speak to contact me why shouldn't I be allowed?
In the USA it's popular to confuse the idea of "freedom of speech" with the idea of "guarantee of an audience".
Especially popular when there's money in it (and also among k00ks whose messages are being ignored).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The implicit right to free speech is not all encompassing. Certain things are excluded. Threatening someone is a criminal offense is but one example. Limiting commercial speech has been upheld by our Supreme Court (sorry, I don't have the citation).
If free speech was all encompassing, then businesses could outright promise the world if you used their product. The truth in advertising laws are a limititation of commercial speech, so the beer companies can only imply you'll get laid by bikini models, but never actually say so. Same goes for tobacco product commercials. They are completely banned on t.v. and radio. If free speech applied to commercial speech, those bans would be declared unconstitutional.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I am getting calls, but the callers say that it is legal because "they are not selling anything". They want to 1) lower my interest rate on my non-existant mortgage, 2) Have me over for 3 hours to watch their presentation on a time share, or 3) sell me insurance.
Why do these people think they can get away with it? Should I report them? I suspect that this law is filled with all sorts of holes, as usual. Anyone care to comment or having similar experiences?
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
The arguement about the free speech issue not withstanding, there is a very fact about this bill that makes the law completely irrelevant in the far term.
This is because of two loopholes that exist in the law. For one, you have the issue of the pre-existing business relationship. While this is not presently a problem, what you're going to see happen is many companies that were previously not in the business of telemarketing opening new subsidiaries solely devoted to offering their "valued customers" "valuable offers" from their "valued partners."
The second loophole really isn't a loophole per se, but a simple and unfortunante fact that US law does not affect those overseas. Already, a large portion of telemarketing is being pushed to overseas locations -- much like the rest of US jobs. Calls originating in India from a corporation headquartered in the Bahamas won't be affected by this law.
In short, all this law will do is cause a major shift in the telemarketing industry. Banks and grocery stores will become the new telemarketing companies, but in the long term, we'll just be annoyed by Indians and Cambodians.
The telemarketing companies complain that the DNC list will severely harm their profits. But with some simple and rather obvious reasoning, it's very easy to dispute this claim.
Consider this, if your number is on the DNC list, chances are you weren't likely to buy much from a telemarketer, anyways. What telemarketers assume is the 50 million numbers that are on the list would be every bit as likely to buy from them as the numbers not on the list. I think my scenario is more likely.
I tend to think the people that haven't signed up to the DNC list either aren't really annoyed by telemarketers or they find some of the products useful and would buy from a telemarketer. There's also the people who don't know of the DNC list, but I doubt that accounts for very many people.
So the real effect of this is the people who are willing to buy from the telemarketers are far less likely to sign up for the list.
It was a wise webmaster who said, in response to some clients blocking their banner ads, that he doesn't care. If they block the banner ads, they probably wouldn't click or buy, anyway. It saves him bandwidth.
Along the same lines as his argument, I'd argue that this actually makes telemarketing more efficient. You are more likely to sell your products to someone who would not sign up for the DNC list than to someone who would sign up for it.
Another thing that really annoys me about telemarketers is when they call, they usually show up on my caller ID as UNAVAILABLE. The problem is there are also legitimate callers who show up the same. I think it needs to be mandatory that those conducting phone calls for the purpose of commercial activity (solicited or otherwise) should be required to display their number and business/name on the recipient's caller ID. This means if you're calling someone to try to sell them a product, you can't call anonymously, either.
Even if the DNC list is overturned in court, my idea for requiring them to show their caller ID information is completely constitutional. And anyone who has a caller ID can simply not answer the phone if they don't wish to receive such calls.
It's just too plain obvious that will happen next; in every 'charity' call, they will try and sell you stuff you don't want, and will 'donate' $1 to a charatiy, by that making it a 'charity' call.
So they will still call, telling you that they focus on they charity, trying to sell you stuff you do not want/need.
The rules are plain to unclear from my point of view...
Telemarketing is not, and never was, harassment.
Oh YES, it damn well is.
Definitions of Harrasment is:
"To irritate or torment persistently."
A lot of people find it irritating that telemarketers call persistently them
at dinner time.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
> If you don't want people calling your phone number, it shouldn't be publicly
> listed. That's why people have private phone numbers, so they aren't bothered.
My number is unlisted, and I do not give it out to companys.
At quick count only about 4 or 5 of my closest friends even have that phone number. I generally use my cell phone for my other friends and a very small list of companys which i assume would be safe (IE Doctors office)
I do get telemarketer calls on the landline.
And the only documented proof I have is my caller ID box showing the multiple calls from the same company, and my word that I indeed told them to not call me again during the first call.
Unfortuatly in the past couple years almost all telemarketers showup as 'unknown' anyway, so I have no way to prove I already talked to someone selling the exact same thing.
I'd have to guess that I can think of a good 10 products being sold (I generally didnt ask for a company name) where they did call back after being told not to.
Now I realize some of those 10 could very well be totally different companys selling the same item, but I cant believe 'most' of them, and its definatly not all of them.
> It disturbs me that people will piss on the First Amendment so easily for a
> little comfort. Hello, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are a bit more important than
> dodging a phone call. UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!
Um. Well, you'll be glad to hear that the First Amendment has nothing what so ever to do with anything in this thread.
I dont care if they pitch their sales to people that care to hear it.
All I know is I dont want to hear it, have told them so, and am still _forced_ to listen to it aginst my will.
And the do not call list, by its very definition and nature, is a *list* of people that are clearly stating they do not wish to listen to telemarketers.
It is not the place for you or the government to force this speach onto me if I do not wish to hear it, and have made my wishes known by stating so on the do-not-call-list which I had to ask the government to add me to in the first place.
The First Amendment does not grant you the right to force me into anything aginst my will.
And as to your "UNLIST YOUR NUMBER!!!" comment, thank you for suggesting what I did as I ordered the phone line 9 years ago. Got any suggestions that may have something to do with solving the problem of harassing calls?
As it would seem, adding or removing my number from the public phone books should have no physical means or otherwise to magically make that number removed from the telemarketers lists.