Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Rules Outlawing Robocalls Go Into Effect Next Week

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-moment-too-soon dept.

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."

15 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Political robocalls too? by patmandu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...or did they make sure to keep that loophole in there for themselves again...

    1. Re:Political robocalls too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They left the loophole open. "Call from political candidates are considered protected speech". Really, what did you expect?

    2. Re:Political robocalls too? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They left the loophole open. "Call from political candidates are considered protected speech". Really, what did you expect?

      system is broken. time for overhaul.

      free speech is when I ask you a question and you are allowed to answer and not fear for your life.

      free speech is NOT the right to call me and force some stupid idea down my throat.

      there IS a difference and its not subtle, either.

      in no reasoning person's mind could a robocall, or ANY kind of political call, be called 'protected'.

      if that's protected, I should be able to call a judge on his personal phone line and complain about his judgements. call my congresscritters on their personal lines and complain and 'sell' them on my way of doing things.

      they want access to us? give us parity and we'll talk. so to speak.

      no? not going to work that way?

      time to redo the system. maybe from scratch, if that's what it takes.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Political robocalls too? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't be embarrassed for not getting politics shoved down your throat. You can hang up on a robot, and they wouldn't even know.

      I think this is the wrong way to go about this. They should require every line used for marketing calls to show up on caller ID as "Marketing", and every call for political reasons to show up as "Political". Then people don't have to answer at all. You can add in a registry to keep people from calling, or you can require phone companies to block numbers with that name on the ID to a given number if you really want. The phone company idea would be my preference, as it's really easy to block numbers on our AT&T wireless lines on the net, and there should be no reason you can't do it on a land line just as easily.

    4. Re:Political robocalls too? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How can you claim "free press" if the press is computer driven? Obviously only people using 18th century printing technology should enjoy freedom of the press...

      Robocalls from "Americans United for Jesus and Kittens and Hey Did You Know My Opponent Loves Pedophiles?" annoy me; but trying to weasel-word your way around freedom of speech(freedom of explicitly political speech, no less) based on technological quibbling is Bad Idea.

      "Sure, you have the right to speak, go ahead. However, I don't remember any 'right to have a packet encoded representation of speech make it to the other end of the wire' in the constitution..." "Sorry citizen, freedom of the press applies only to impact printed documents, don't you know what 'press' means? Inkjet or laser printed subversive literature will get you 20 to life..."

    5. Re:Political robocalls too? by dword · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about calling from another country? I'm from Europe, but I've heard that the telemarketers solved most of their "problems" by simply using call centers from other countries. They haven't done anything, except outlawing robocalls from US telemarketers to US residents. One country down, 202 to go.

    6. Re:Political robocalls too? by jonadab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > free speech is when I ask you a question and you
      > are allowed to answer and not fear for your life.

      Oh, it's a bit more than that. Free speech is when you can stand on on the sidewalk downtown and tell your political ideas to anyone who will listen, hand out pamphlets to anyone who will take them, hold rallies where five hundred like-minded people all get together in a public place...

      I am even willing to accept unsolicited political phonecalls, as long as the number you're calling is a publicly listed number and not listed in the DNC registry, and provided it's a human doing the calling.

      But machine autocalling with a pre-recorded message is something else. The objection here is NOT to what you are saying. The objection here is to the fact that you are wasting my time *only*, and not spending any of your own time to do so. It doesn't matter if your message is commercial or political, because we're fundamentally not talking about what you're allowed to *say*.

      And the do-not-call registry should apply to all unsolicited calls. Ordinarily a politician can knock on your door and, if you answer, ask if he can have a moment of your time to tell you about $issue. A salesman can do the same thing. But if you put a sign on your door asking them not to do so, they're supposed to respect that. The DNC registry serves the same purpose as that sign on the door.

      This is not a free speech issue. They can say whatever they want, in public. Nobody's going to arrest or penalize them for what they say. (Well, we might choose to vote for the other guy, but that goes with the territory when you run for public office.) It's not about speech. It's about privacy, and the right of the individual home-owner to choose who and what he allows into his home.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    7. Re:Political robocalls too? by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Robocalls says something about the character of the candidate.

      That's only true if the robocall actually came from the candidate (or his campaign organization).

      As others have pointed out, many political robocalls come from a candidate's opponent, in an attempt to get voters sufficiently annoyed at the candidate to vote against him/her. Unless you can verify that a robocall is actually from the candidate, it tells you nothing at all about the candidate.

      Fraud is a routine part of many (perhaps most) political campaigns. It's routine to try to get voters to accept lies about your opponent. This is just one of many ways to do so. Google for "push poll" for another popular method.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. Won't matter by RedMage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Won't matter by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's already a "Do not call" mechanism that's ignored.

      Junk phone calls are just a small fraction of what they were before the list, I'm surprised how effective it has been. So, I'm all for closing remaining loopholes.

  3. Definition of "in writing"? by CustomDesigned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Robocalls are worse than unsolicited email by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  5. Thats actually pretty funny... by msimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Calls from political campaigns are considered protected speech

    But who knew we'd already granted computers rights?!!

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Thats actually pretty funny... by bartwol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think a prerecorded message is analogous to either a bullhorn or a prerecorded television ad.

      Neither bullhorn nor TV ad are allowed to enter into my home without my consent. It is practical for me to leave off (or to not have) a TV. But a phone provides essential services (including emergency services) that cannot function if it is turned off. The bullhorn, actually, can be annoying by coming through my window, but in fact, the state has retained latitude to regulate that problem through noise control regulations and requirements of permit for public demonstration.

      The allowance of political calls (under the guise of free speech) simply reflects legislative selfishness...a willingness to enforce just behavior upon all but themselves. It reflects the self-serving, less-than-high ethics that characterizes all but the fewest of politicians. They rationalize it away under a Greater Good theory, in this case some abstract virtue of greater public participation in politics. But that's just a cover fib, their real motive being to avail themselves of political advantage through any and all legal means. If you want to see how much they care about public participation, check their records on trying to help people of opposing parties to participate in politics.

  6. Re:scumbags don't call me, but politicians do by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    scumbags don't call me, but politicians do

    You contradict yourself.