Slashdot Mirror
FTC Rules Outlawing Robocalls Go Into Effect Next Week
coondoggie writes "Nearly a year after announcing the plan, new Federal Trade Commission
rules prohibiting most robocalls are set to take effect Tuesday, Sept. 1. With the rules, prerecorded commercial telemarketing robocalls will be prohibited, unless the telemarketer has obtained permission in writing from consumers who want to receive such calls. Hopefully the rules will go a long way to helping consumers eat dinner in peace without being interrupted by amazingly annoying telemarketer blather or in this case prerecorded blather. The requirement is part of amendments to the agency's Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) that were announced a year ago. After September 1, sellers and telemarketers who transmit prerecorded messages to consumers who have not agreed in writing to accept such messages will face penalties of up to $16,000 per call."
...or did they make sure to keep that loophole in there for themselves again...
For the most annoying types (scams mostly) this won't matter any. There's already a "Do not call" mechanism that's ignored. The legitimate ones will obey, the rest will just continue on.
Yes, it gives some teeth for when you actually catch them, but for the millions of us who have been getting the "Your credit rating will be affected!!!" calls lately, I doubt it will make any difference to our evening meals.
}#q NO CARRIER
Presumably, "opt-in" counts as "in writing", and my library will continue to robocall to announce that my book on hold is available. But on the flip side, I can see all sorts of obscure checkboxes when you order online that enable robocalls should you not notice and check/uncheck them.
The problem is that any language they put in the bill to protect mass "information only" calls, can also be used as justification by clever spammers. "But we weren't trying to sell anything... we are trying to educate prequalified members of the public on this issue, and were merely pointing them to our web site filled with articles from experts and offer them the opportunity to join our community of interested citizens absolutely free of charge."
Most of the robo calls (all scams) that I get in Canada come from the US. I hope that this is not allowed. Also will they just move to India or whatnot and phone North America? The best place to block these calls is at the Telco level. Have people dial a code when crap calls come in. Then after a handful of crap calls are noted the number is blocked for all people who opt into this system for all users of the Telco. This would not only block scams and whatnot but it would block all numbers that other people have indicated are obnoxious as all DNC lists seem to exclude political and charity calling. I don't want anyone calling me who isn't a friend or family. I didn't get the phone for any one else to phone me so any telco that will block all crap calls will win my business.
I'd rather get 10 spam messages than one phone call. The phone call distracts me from my day to day activities, while email is a mode I put myself to check. I'm glad they're outlawing robocalls.
God spoke to me.
Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech
But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!
Quack, quack.
What detractors against regulation miss is that their creed, if enacted, would also eliminate regulations that personally benefit them. It's just another aspect of the Right's extraordinary ability to convince otherwise-rational people to act against their own interests. Through careful stoking of innate fears via the media, the Right induces a pathology in approximately 33% of the population.
Crap! The drugs are wearing off!
RON PAUL! RON PAUL! THE GOVERNMENT WILL KILL YOUR BABIES!
I wouldn't consider paying a fine (in this case, $16K/incident) to be much of a punishment. Sure, the robocaller stops bothering me, but once the robocaller is fined the government keeps it all. Every time a robocaller calls me, I'm the one who is inconvenienced, so why don't I get anything for helping to bring one of these guys down? It seems to me that if I report the number and it gets successfully prosecuted, I should get a cut of the reward. You can take the $16K fine and split it up equally among the people who reported that same number, and everyone wins.
It will never happen that way, though.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
scumbags don't call me, but politicians do
You contradict yourself.
Oh, fuck you. Obama's policies, if he can get undemocratic senate to pass them, would obviously benefit the common man. That his approval rating is falling is a refection of the skill of the satanic Republican provocateurs and not of any rational problem with his approach.
Hell. I might just stop answering my phone entirely.
You answer your phone? I answer my phone for my immediate family. Period. Everyone else who bothers calling get's my voice mail--and they know that. If I ever get a call from spam it goes on my spam list. If people want to get in touch with me, they need to learn how to use email. I simply don't get bothered any more.
Questions you may have: (Q) what if it is an emergency? (A) dial 9-1-1 for emergencies; (Q) but my land line doesn't have all those fancy features (A) turn off your land line ringer.
Just callin' it like I see it.
Which is why I think the best way would be to go after the product being peddled rather than the company making the call. The same would work for spam too.
Make a law that says that any product company advertised through spam/robocalls will be investigated and if found in violation of spam/call rules will be fined. That'll stop the contracting out of spamming duties to offshore/multiple shell companies.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
Perhaps they'll attach a notice to the Bed Bath & Beyond 20% off coupon that arrives in the mail on days ending in "y".
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!
Yeah. Because nothing that anyone says using a machine -- say to aid in disseminating their thoughts to many more people than they could talk to in person -- is actual protected speech!
Now report to the reeducation center, citizen.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Regulation is a service, so clearly you are wrong.
And it will mess with your credit rating. Having half-a-dozen cards stolen over the course of a few years is a very good indication to banks that you're a good credit risk to a bank, even if it's merely a risk of your wasting their time and money this way.
In general I'd agree with your post, but perhaps take it a step further. It's not just that nobody reads the "fine print", the real problem is that nobody can really understand the fine print unless they go to law school and study contracts. Not many people who read the contract all the way through will understand that clauses 2 and 6 puts them over a barrel, but clause 10 is so ridiculous that no court in the land will enforce it, and you can agree to it to your heart's content but you're not actually bound by it.
So the deeper problem is this: if you aren't equipped to read and understand a contract, does that mean you have to consult a lawyer every time you're asked to agree to one? This would be horribly inefficient, as we'd all be trotting off to see our lawyers every time we accepted a parking lot stub, bought a piece of software, clicked through a EULA online, etc. It just doesn't work.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.