1
   

Hate Telemarketers?/National "Do Not Call" Registry Coming

 
 
narrs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 12:47 pm
Perhaps it is just me, But why not a national "call" registry or spam registry instead. If I want to get calls or spam, then I add my name to the list, and telemarketers and spammers have a way to reach mel. Not on the list, No Calls or spam. Call or spam someone not on the list, the penalty is life in prison.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 09:57 pm
Reported tonight that there is a loophole in the law: if you have an 'established business relationship', then they are exempt. So don't give permissions to email or anything to anyone. Your bank, insurance company, mortgage, credit card companies, ad nauseum, will still be able to call you.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:58 am
Not good news
Quote:



U.S. Court Blocks Anti-Telemarketing List
Wed September 24, 2003 11:28 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national "do not call" list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls, the Direct Marketing Association said on Wednesday.
The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to the DMA.

The FTC had signed up some 50 million phone numbers for the list, which was due to take effect on Oct. 1.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 10:42 am
California will probably be the first state in the union to outlaw spam. I hope it works, because I get five to ten spam every day.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 10:53 am
Timber
That is not good news at all. People are going to be pissed. I hope they don't stop it here in Canada. Those calls have already stopped in my house and it's heaven.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:07 pm
If you request information from any company, then they define that as legitimate and those telemarketers are exempt. If you sign, online, permission to have a company, and its partners, contact you, then they can all call you. ANy time you register a product, that is defined as a preexisting business relationship, and that company, and all of its affiliate partners, are exempt from the law. This is in addition to those companies, and its affiliate partners, that do have a longterm relationship with you already. It is a fairly huge loophole.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 05:59 pm
How Can We Kill JIMMI GRIZZBRACER?

Today's ruling was a setback but probably only a temporary one.
One of my employees handles a lot of the calls that we get from telemarketers. He has little sympathy for them and, accordingly, jerks them around a bit with some pretty bizarre stories. Some of y'all approve of that; others don't. So be it.
But at some point he gave someone the name listed at the top of this reply.
We are astounded at how many people call asking for JIMMI; how much mail JIMMI gets (today a 42 page brochure offering a subscription to a database of 500,000 churches).
JIMMI got a credit card application.

If there is a real JIMMI GRIZZBRACER out there, we apologize. -rjb-
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 06:20 pm
When I get a telemarketing call, I say, please wait a second, then I lay down the phone and wait until the other side hangs up.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 06:47 pm
I assume you've all heard the news by now? A court has ruled that the FTC overstepped its bounds in creating the do-not-call registry and that the whole thing is null and void. Telemarketers are rejoicing. It'll be appealed, of course.

Funny, funny story, realjohnboy,
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:47 pm
You can bet they are rejoicing M.A. In more ways than one.

The "Do Not Call" lists were already distributed. In effect, with this ruling, the FTC just handed the telemarketers a list millions of 100% valid phone numbers for them to start dialing. They'd usually pay thousands of $$ each for that type of list.

The "do not call" list might very well become the "we kow you are out there" list. Sad
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 12:36 am
Here's better NEWS

Quote:
Congress moves to defend do-not-call list
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 04:11 am
Some of the extreme paranoids on Abuzz (and Abuzz is rife with extreme paranoids, as most of you know) are already speculating that the whole thing was a scam to get 'suspicious' and 'undesirable' people to come out and reveal themselves. So, all of you who actually gave your names and phone numbers to the gummint, watch out! Your name is now on an 'enemies of free enterprise' list. LOL Smile
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 05:59 am
Merry Andrew- Funny that you should say that. I am one of those people who love my privacy, and despise intrusion from telemarketers. I was happy when I learned about the national list. For years, I have been on the DMA's "Do not call" list, as well as a state list.

A few days ago, I heard about the lawsuit being instituted by the Direct Marketing Association, and I started to think. Their contention was that the government had overstepped their authority. When I pondered this a bit, I realized that they were RIGHT.

So I then realized that I was caught up in a situation where I wanted the government to "take care of me", even though the more the government interferes in citizen's lives. the less freedom that we have.

I remember a VERY old joke from the bad old days of the Soviet Union:

An American dog and a Soviet dog are talking. The American dog is bemoaning that he has to do so much to please his master, that he needs to do tricks and respond to commands.

The Soviet dog describes how in the Soviet system he gets a warm home, and all the food that he needs. In fact, everything is taken care of, and he does not have to do anything.

The American dog thinks about this for a moment, and scratches his head.
He turns to the Soviet dog and says,

"Yes, you get everything that you need, and don't do anything for it. But at least, over here, I can bark!"
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 07:19 am
The point of contention was not that "The Government" overstepped its authority, but rather that The Federal Trade Commission assumed regulative authority determined to be properly in the realm of The Federal Communications Commission ... not that the marketers got slapped with a restriction, but who slapped them with it. The wrong dog barked.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 11:53 am
I've already been posting on au1929's thread about this, so no point in repeating myself, except to say that this judge reflects my POV:

Quote:
But (Judge Edward) Nottingham found the do-not-call plan unconstitutional on freedom of speech grounds because it allows charitable organizations to continue to call numbers on the list, while commercial firms were barred.

"There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers," (emphasis mine) Nottingham wrote. By exempting charitable solicitations, the FTC "has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home ... thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech consumers should hear."

"The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws creating a preference for certain types of speech based on content, without asserting a valid interest, premised on content, to justify its discrimination," the judge said.


Houston Chronicle

D-N-C is going to be a loser on First Amendment grounds, and that's a good thing from where I sit.

(dons flame-retardant suit)


edited to add link
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 12:49 pm
PDiddie wrote:
D-N-C is going to be a loser on First Amendment grounds, and that's a good thing from where I sit.

(dons flame-retardant suit)



I don't think so. A Telemarketers 1st Amendment right to free speech doesn't supercede the telephone owner's right to Freedom of Association.

Under the right of Freedom of Association I have the right to explicitly exclude anyone I choose to from my life and registering on the D-N-C list is my explicit affirmation of that desire.

In both the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and California Democratic Party v. Jones cases the USSC upheld that people can not be forced to associate with someone they choose not to associate with.
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 08:08 pm
That sounds good to me Fishin. I would think that a persons right to their privacy in their own home would over power telemarketers rights by a long shot. We are the ones who pay for our phone service and we should have the right to restrict unwanted calls.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 09:44 pm
fishin's point goes right to the heart of it, IMO. Freedom of Speech does not entail the additonal right to impose that speech on others. One may say whatever one wishes. One may not demand that others listen.
0 Replies
 
fealola
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2003 11:06 pm
roup to Members: Observe Don't-Call List
By DAVID HO

WASHINGTON (AP) - The largest telemarketing industry group says it wants its members to abide by the national ``do-not-call'' list next week despite two court rulings that have thrown the program's future into legal limbo.

``We are telling our members, yes indeed, we don't want you calling people who have told anyone they don't want any calls,'' Direct Marketing Association President H. Robert Wientzen said Friday. He said he hasn't had time to arrange agreements making that request binding, but ``up to the moment I have had nobody disagree.''

The list of nearly 51 million phone numbers is scheduled to go into effect Wednesday, but rulings by two federal courts have made that plan unlikely.

U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver issued a ruling late Thursday saying the list violates telemarketers' free speech rights.

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Timothy Muris said Friday the agency will fight the decision.

``I do not believe that our Constitution dictates such an illogical result,'' Muris said. ``To the contrary, our Constitution allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial telemarketing calls.''

Muris said that if Nottingham's reasoning were applied elsewhere, it would cripple the more than two dozen state do-not-call lists.

The FTC is still allowing people to sign up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.

However, the latest court ruling means the agency can't penalize telemarketers for violating the registry, said Walter Janowski, a director with research firm Gartner Inc.

``This likely precludes a quick fix such as Congress' attempt yesterday,'' he said. ``We can expect multiple appeals potentially as high as the Supreme Court.''

Janowski said the voluntary efforts of some telemarketers to obey the list will have mixed results for consumers. ``Legitimate telemarketers will listen. It's the ones that are less legitimate or somewhat sleazy that are the ones we have the problems with to begin with,'' he said.

Many telemarketers already have obtained the do-not-call list to compare with their own calling lists.

Wientzen said that despite telling members to obey the wishes of people who don't want to be called, the telemarketing industry still opposes the do-not-call list.

``We don't think this is an appropriate role for government,'' Wientzen said in a telephone interview. ``These cases are simply making that point.''

Nottingham's ruling capped a frantic day in which Congress moved with nearly unprecedented speed and unanimity in an attempt to counter an earlier court ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City. West's ruling on Tuesday said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry.

The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it Monday. ``Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common,'' he said in a statement.

Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.

Nottingham's ruling said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities.

West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Lawmakers responded with remarkable speed to West's order. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but this bill was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours.

Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call. Nottingham's phone numbers are online as well.

The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers, including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.

The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

The national registry is intended to block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls

The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.

Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2003 07:29 am
You folks will forgive me if I side with the judge and the law professors and the Constitutional scholars (and probably the Supreme Court):

Quote:
The court decision late Thursday forbidding the government from carrying out a national do-not-call registry on First Amendment grounds will force appeals courts and lawmakers to make some excruciating choices.

The registry, and indeed all measures to combat telemarketers, are enormously popular with the public. Already, Americans have listed 50 million phone numbers that they had hoped telephone solicitors would stop calling after Oct. 1, when the program was scheduled to go into effect.

But the decision, by Judge Edward W. Nottingham of the Federal District Court in Denver, made what may legal experts say is a good case that regulators had engaged in unconstitutional discrimination in allowing people to block commercial calls but not calls from charities, political parties, religious institutions and polling organizations.

"Under existing doctrine by the Supreme Court," said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an expert on free speech issues, "it's a perfectly reasonable decision."

Unlike the decision Tuesday by a federal judge in Oklahoma, which ruled that the Federal Trade Commission had overstepped its authority in establishing the registry, Judge Nottingham's decision is not subject to a quick fix. While Congress, in a stunningly rapid bipartisan response, supplied the needed authority to moot the decision in Oklahoma almost immediately, it faces unpalatable alternatives in response to Judge Nottingham's decision.


New York Times

The legislation's got too many exceptions to hold water.

At the very least it will have to be re-written.

And then it will be challenged all over again.

In the meantime the telemarketers are going to observe it.

Congratulations.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Spiegel Banner Ads - Discussion by cjhsa
Cartoons - Discussion by gollum
What is celebrity endorsement? - Discussion by LA girl1994
Is misleading advertizing a crime? - Question by Rickoshay75
Brand names for Solar products? - Question by kittycat94
Make some friends - Discussion by moody003
fob with t/t payment - Question by mjn
Logo design -- offensive or not? - Question by boomerang
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 09:09:47