Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court OKs FTC's Do-Not-Call List
GTRacer writes "The USA Today website just posted a report that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver) has upheld the FTC's national Do Not Call registry. In their decision, the Court found the list to be 'a valid commercial speech regulation...without burdening an excessive amount of speech.' The telemarketers had challenged the constitutionality of blocking commercial free speech while allowing charities and select others to continue phone solicitation. Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?" The court's decision is available to read.
"without burdening an excessive amount of speech"? How about, "an excessive burdening of free speech"?
Must have been one of those "C" average appointments I keep hearing about.
'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.'
Yeah, that's a hoot, but rest assured, their operators aren't exactly standing by on this one, they're probably lobbying like all get out.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wooooo hooooo! Chalk one up for the little guy. Now if I could just get every other 80's fan from calling my phone number (867-5309-eee-ine) I'd be a happy man!
P.S.- no, my name is NOT jenny.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Even when I pay Qwest to block telemarketers, THEY call me to sell me stuff.
Interestingly enough, 'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.' Isn't it now obvious these people have a double-standard when it comes to reaching out and touching someone?
Where's the double standard? They have yet to challenge the legality of you not picking up your phone.
My personal favorite was a call a got a few years ago. A qwest customer service rep. called at dinnertime to sell a new service. The new service in question... blocking telemarketers's calls. I asked her if it would block calls like hers and she told me, "No, you are our customer so we can still call you." I didn't opt for the service.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
'Officials in the telemarketing industry did not immediately return calls seeking comment.'
I bet they were just in the middle of dinner, all you have to do is try your call again at 9pm.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Perhaps we should call them over and over again, just to be sure. Around dinner time, and maybe again later.
And all hours of the weekend. Definitely then.
Fairly soon we'll have a Can-Call Act 2004 which allows telemarketers to call anyone as long as they identify themselves (hi, this is Mike) at the beginning of the call, and allows callees to opt-out (hang up the phone).
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I have always been annoyed at the telemarketing industry's arguments as to why they should be able to do this. They have always maintained that it was free speech. What they fail to realize is that it is free speech that I have to pay for! Sure, I would have a phone anyway, but basically they are wasting my money. If they want to market on the street corner, go right ahead because that truly is free speech (obviously within limits) but when you come into my home on the telephone line I am paying for, then it crosses the line and that is not free speech.
This leads me to another thought. I have always wondered why the telemarketing industry doesn't pay for people's phone lines in return for getting phone spam. ISP's do it, why not here?
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Either the DNC lists are working or my phone has been out of order for a while. I'd as a friend to call and check but I only know virtual people.
In theory, the fact that this is an election year doesn't matter for the judge. Appeals court judges are appointed for life precisely to put them above politics (which moves the politics to the nomination and approvals side of things).
Popularity can get the law passed, but only the constitution (and the common law) go into whether the judge approves it.
In theory.
What will be interesting to see is how fast the telemarketing firms find work-arounds.
"Hello? Yes, this is the United Way. We're calling to let you know that under arrangement with Company X a small donation allows us to offer you. . . "
KFG
As a consultant for a large mortgage bank, I can assure you banks are not exempt.
This fact helped me convince upper management that outbound campaigns were a cost prohibitive idea.
My state's Do-Not-Call List has kept my phone blissfully silent for the last year or so. But the various DNC List laws have several loopholes. Perhaps the worst is the political campaign loophole. Worse yet, many of those campaigns are using automated responders which simply play a recording if you (or your answering machine) answers. Our primary is today, over the last three days I've gotten a half dozen unwelcome political calls and a dozen hung up calls that I can only guess are predictive dialers. For a phone that normally rings one a week this was a huge irritation. At least they haven't started calling my cell phone (yet).
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Which is why those of us who've signed up haven't had any unsolicted calls from phone companies or credit card issuers. :)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
we can expect a Do-Not-Slashdot list to follow?
One example of this already:
In our local shopping mall there is a shiny new car parked in the walkway. Next to it is a box with a pile of "entry forms" on the top of it, enticing people to enter to win a new car, or a pile of cash or whatever.
When you read the fine print on the back of the card, you find that by filling out the card, you are giving them and anyone they feel like sharing it with permission to contact you via phone or mail.
I just wonder what would happen if someone filled out one of these for me (being on the Do Not Call list) without my knowledge or permission, and they contacted me. Hmm...
You probably shouldn't click this.
I registered on the UK's do not call list (a list that's not exactly advertised)
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk
I was totally fed up with the weekly telesales calls.
I registered in September 2002. I've had the letter on my desk ever since, ready to complain.
It was not until today (nice synchronicity) that I got my first sales call.
The sales drone thought I was pretty interested in the call, asking for their address and telephone number and the exact nature of the 'wonderful special offer'. Of course, what I was doing was getting the drone to tell me the details required to fill in the online complaint form.
She sounded genuinely shocked when I said "Thank you, I feel it is only fair to inform you that you are in breach of the Telecommunications (Data Protection & Privacy) Regulations 1999 and as such have just been reported to the TPS".
hehe well worth the wait
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Don't think that the telemarketters don't know their own business.
You're involved in outsourcing and telemarketing - and you expect sympathy here?
The other big difference is due to the low cost of sending spam v. the relatively high expense of placing calls. Even if the CAN-SPAM law starts getting enforced, the spammers could simply move offshore and continue their harrassment. I constantly get Italian-language spam (salami?) even though I only know about ten words of Italian. But when you factor in the costs involved, international long distance is currently too high a barrier for telemarketers to cross.
Sadly, this might all change with VoIP. "Voila-marketers" (I just made that term up) from off-shore sweatshops who can place international sales calls for almost-free just might do for the telephone what spam did for email. Scripts and canned recordings would even drastically reduce the language barriers, permitting poor English speakers to control synthesized voices that sound as smooth as James Earl Jones'. And so your prediction may unfortunately come true.
John
As much as I am annoyed by telemarketing, spam and all sort of other unsolicited products/services, I am dubious about this. I'm all for the Do-not-call list, but in this case telemarketers do have a point. Why allow charities and not them? The only reason so few people are complaining (even here on /.) is that most people are annoyed by telemarketing. If this was about a more neutral service, there would be serious complaints.
A better approach would be a do-not-call list with options: 1 option for "do not call me at all", and another option with "do not call me, but still allow charities", or something in this matter. This would give power to individual consumer, and remove any validity from telemarketers complaints.
The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
Why it is that non-profits and political campaigns are exempt in the first place?
... I don't want you to call, email, or mail me! Leave me the f*** alone! Don't call me; I'll call you. kthxbye.
My reaction when reading this blurb is, "Damn right, it's unfair -- ban them, too!"
I don't care if you're representing Joe Blow Lightbulbs Inc. or Mary Sue Parapalegic Midgit Orphans.org
-monique