Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government The Courts United States Your Rights Online News

10th Circuit Says FTC Can Enforce Do Not Call 372

Posted by timothy from the auto-reverse-billing-would-take-care-of-it dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

10th Circuit Says FTC Can Enforce Do Not Call More

10th Circuit Says FTC Can Enforce Do Not Call

Comments Filter:

  • FCC and FTC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr.42NO@SPAMosu.edu> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:03PM (#7158011)
    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.

    • Finally (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Finally a good ruling on this. I have heard enough about free-speech, etc. The court has affirmed a simple fact: people have the right to end harassment against them.

  • In Canada (Score:2, Informative)

    by calcifer ( 649855 )
    here in canada we dont have any fancy do not call lists. I've started doing it the old fashioned way. when telemarketers call i tell them to please never call back again. before, i received at least 2 calls per day, now its about 3 per week, and the number keeps decreasing. it actually works, if you are getting repeat calls from certain parties. so, try that out, people in canada, and other non-US places.

    • Back in my day (Score:5, Funny)

      by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis@uUUUtk.edu minus threevowels> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:09PM (#7158054) Homepage Journal
      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...
      • we'd just walk 30 miles in the snow to the local light plug....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.

        You had phones? In my day all we had was a pair of tin cans and some taut string. I had to wake up at 4 am to shovel coal to run the steam-powered computer so I could log in using a 1-baud modem..

    • Re:In Canada (Score:3, Insightful)

      by macemoneta ( 154740 )
      The reason that it has come to a legal device like the do-not-call list, is that some telemarketers have abused their privileges.

      I have had telemarketers laugh at me when I politely asked to be removed from their call lists. I have had telemarketers actually berate me for not interrupting them sooner to tell them I was not interested. I have had the same company telemarketer call me six times a day (they don't all block CallerID).

      Yes, I have filed complaints with the companies involved. I have gotten p

      • Re:In Canada (Score:2, Insightful)

        by calcifer ( 649855 )
        well, this is just speculation, but i think the reason people ignore your requests and laugh at you is because you live in the US.

        here in Canada, where people apologize for everything, the telemarketers mumble an apology and dont call back. this kind of shows the fundamental differences between the two cultures.

  • unfortunatly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LennyDotCom ( 26658 ) <Lenny@lenny.com> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:04PM (#7158022) Homepage Journal
    It won't effect this type of scum http://www.datausainc.com

  • Speaking to people (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:05PM (#7158031) Homepage
    At the end of the day its my choice if I want to speak to someone. If someone in the street says hi and I don't want to speak to them I won't. Also if I put a sign round my neck saying "Don't speak to me", as its my right I would like to think people would respect that.

    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? If I want to speak to someone about a product I will call them

    In the UK there is something similar called the TPS (Telephone Protection System) which actually does work but the again we don't have the implicit right to free speech

    Rus
    • put a sign round my neck saying "Don't speak to me"

      Not only will they not speak to you, they back slowly away, just hoping they don't become part of your "news at 11"

    • Re: Speaking to people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:11PM (#7158076)


      > 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).

    • Re:Speaking to people (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:15PM (#7158112) Journal
      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.
      • "The implicit right to free speech is not all encompassing. Certain things are excluded"

        You can also add disturbing the peace to not protected speech. People don't have a right to walk down a quiet residential street with a PA shouting their message. Telemarketers are equally obnoxious. That's why we already have laws banning telemarketing calls before 8am and after 10pm (not exactly sure of the times, but I think that's right).
      • In most western nations, including Canada, it is a felony to question the Holocaust in any way. There are hundreds of people in prison for doing just that. Only in the US and the Netherlands is it not a crime.

    • Re:Speaking to people (Score:3, Informative)

      by Macka ( 9388 )

      In the UK there is something similar called the TPS (Telephone Protection System)

      Actually, it's the Telephone Preference Service [tpsonline.org.uk] and it works great. I work from home a lot and was amazed at how many nuisance phone calls I got during the day. It reached a point where I stopped answering the phone and would only call back if it was a genuine number. Registering with the TPS has changed all that. The unsolicited calls have stopped and my phone is my own again. This service is definitely something you wi

    • Re:Speaking to people (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Scoot G ( 714257 )
      [quote] At the end of the day its my choice if I want to speak to someone. If someone in the street says hi and I don't want to speak to them I won't. Also if I put a sign round my neck saying "Don't speak to me", as its my right I would like to think people would respect that.[/quote]

      So I lose my Freedom of Speech due to your yearn for silence? I'm not so sure I buy that. However, if you paid to walk down the street, you should be able to regulate what happens, to a certain extent, while walking down the

  • ummmm..... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HeyYou82 ( 519576 )
    "I have already gotten 3 telemarketing calls to the phone number I put on the national list since the list went into effect."

    well, you can't sue them, since the list wasn't supposed to be enacted until early October anyway, meaning that even though your name was on the list, it was not yet banned from telemarketing calls.

    • "I have already gotten 3 telemarketing calls to the phone number I put on the national list since the list went into effect."

      well, you can't sue them, since the list wasn't supposed to be enacted until early October anyway

      Did you notice that he claimed he'd had those calls since it went into effect? So if the list went into effect today, he's claiming that today he has already had 3 calls that violate the list. Or are you suggesting that the list still shouldn't be in effect yet, even though it alre

  • may still call you (Score:4, Informative)

    by _avs_007 ( 459738 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:08PM (#7158051)
    Telemarketers may still call you, if they have a pre-existing business relationship with you. So if you bank with BofA for example, BofA and all of its subsidiaries (and IIRC, business partners) can/will call you.
    • Telemarketers may still call you, if they have a pre-existing business relationship with you. So if you bank with BofA for example, BofA and all of its subsidiaries (and IIRC, business partners) can/will call you.

      Or the one that really ticked me off a year or so back, when, despite the fact that I'm on Colorado's No Call List, I received a call from... Microsoft. What proportion of the general population does not have a pre-existing business relationship with Microsoft?

    • if you bank with BofA for example
      BofA???

      Bastard Operator From America???

  • now taking bets.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:10PM (#7158067)
    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?

  • A nitpick... (Score:3, Informative)

    by /dev/trash ( 182850 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:11PM (#7158083) Homepage Journal
    I have already gotten 3 telemarketing calls to the phone number I put on the national list since the list went into effect."


    It's not in force until the court cases are resolved, so yeah you will still get calls. Move to Pennsylvania, we have a DNC list and since being on it I have gotten no calls.

    • It's not in force until the court cases are resolved,

      How about RTFA? From the article:
      "The legal status of the list is still not resolved as the appeals court must determine whether it unconstitutionally discriminates between commercial and charitable calls, which are not subject to the no-call rule.

      But until then, the FTC will be able to fine [my emphasis] telemarketers up to $11,000 for each time they call one of the 51 million phone numbers on the list"
  • How do I extract the correct names of these callers and report them to the FTC when they call? I get at least three per day.
    • Under the new regulations passed, they are required to provide you with their name/phone number. If they don't, use complain about a call feature on your phone. When the telco calls to find out about your situation explain it to them.

  • regulation vs unwanted callers. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dilvie ( 713915 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:11PM (#7158086) Homepage Journal
    It's a numbers game, really. What is the bigger pain the the public's arse? 60 phonecalls / day that we don't want to get, or some regulation that gives us a central place to say, "don't call me, or I'll SUE YOU."

    The fact is, for consumers, the numbers are against us. There are LOTS of businesses out there competing for our interest, and they will use any outlet they think is valid for their marketing purposes.

    The more people they can get their message to, the better. That means that as they all expand their marketing efforts, we all get a lot more calls. The problem is, there's a limit to how many unwanted solicitations we as individuals can tolerate, and I don't know about the rest of you, but I've reached mine.

    • It's a numbers game, really. What is the bigger pain the the public's arse? 60 phonecalls / day that we don't want to get, or some regulation that gives us a central place to say, "don't call me, or I'll SUE YOU."

      The fact is, for consumers^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h citizens , the numbers are against us. There are LOTS of businesses out there competing for our interest, and they will use any outlet they think is valid for their marketing purposes.

      The more people they can get their message to, the better. That mean

  • The law is flawed and should be rewritten (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geekee ( 591277 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:16PM (#7158120)
    Although I agree that telemarketers don't have the right to call me at home if I don't want them to, I don't like this law because non-profit and politcal organizations are exempt. This is unconstitutional in that it makes a distinction between speech for profit and speech with other agendas. If it's not a free speech issue (as I think), but instead a no free platform for speech issue (i.e. you can have your free speech, but not in my living room), then I should have the right to block political and non-prfit calls as well.

    • Re:The law is flawed and should be rewritten (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, it's not. Key distinction: the government is not prohibiting the speech; the prohibition is initiated by the citizens who don't want to be annoyed. It's not about freedom-of-speech, they're trying to get the court to grant them a right to harass. If anti-stalking laws are constitutional, the anti-telemarketing laws must be as well.

      Now, it wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if they fixed this alleged shortcoming by stopping the "charity" calls and the politicians, too. It's my phone, and I don't want any

    • I don't know about re-written, but perhaps expanded.

      First have the main list for commercial telemarkets, as now exists.

      Add a second list for politicians, and a third for non-profits.

      That would allow people to filter according to personal choice, although I'm fairly certain most would opt out of all 3 types of calls.

      • The caller-ID string should include information about what kind of entity is calling you. Individual, LLC, Inc, Ltd, NonProfit, blah blah blah. Then you could have a callerid box which would only ring aloud after getting the callerid, and only if you wanted the call. It would also be nice if someone forced everyone who made unsolicited calls to send the caller id string.

        Then we don't need these laws. They can try to call you, and you can simply reject them and never know they've called. A smart enough box

    • you certainly have the right to block political and non-profit calls. get rid of your freaking phone. there's no constitutional ammendment requiring you to have phone service. trust me, the calls WILL stop if you discontinue your phone service.

      as far as making a distinction between free speech and speech for profit, the courts have historically ruled that corporations do not enjoy the same constitutional rights that individuals do. i conclude that very often the corporations are living under the law in
      • you certainly have the right to block political and non-profit calls. get rid of your freaking phone. there's no constitutional ammendment requiring you to have phone service. trust me, the calls WILL stop if you discontinue your phone service.

        I suppose I won't have any more trouble with toenail fungal infections if I chop my foot off, either. So I opt instead to keep my very useful foot and seek treatment for the infections.

        Why can't there be 3 lists - One for commercial, one political, and one non-pr
    • The Supreme Court has always held political speech to be more protected than commercial speech. Political organizations obviously qualify. Making the case for non-profits is slightly more difficult, but because of how they operate they are obviously not commercial and are at the least implicitly political. As long as this distinction is made to the satisfaction of the court, the FTC is fully entitled to discriminate.

      If the court believes that the FTC also has the right to block political and non-profit

  • What's the deal with this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:19PM (#7158150)
    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?
    • I thought number 3 was hilarious! "They are not selling anything." HaHa! :)
      • Remember... they are ADMITTEDLY the lowest IQ group in the country. Unemployable anywhere else, according to themselves. That is to say... they are very stupid people.

        I find that telemarketers and IRS employees have a lot in common. Remember the gall of IRS employees who picketed the IDEA of a flat tax because it would put them out of work. Amazingly brazen, but just as stupid at the same time. Not to mention that they can't answer tax questions correctly 65% of the time.
    • I think they're getting slick too. Cingular called my home and started out saying "this is a courtesy call...." instead of right off the bat "we have an excellent deal..."

      Guess who I just canceled my service with....
    • Why do these people think they can get away with it?

      The same reason spammers think they can get away with putting "This is not spam" in their emails; because they have zero respect for the people they're calling. They think you're too dumb/gullible to protest.

      Should I report them?

      Well, it's easy for me to spend your money on lawyers on your behalf, but I'd say yes. The Do Not Call list will only be effective if it's enforced. If telemarketers can wink and nod and go on about their business, then all o
  • ...And it includes anyone and everyone who I don't recognize on my Caller ID.

    If people don't have the courtesy to identify themselves when they call, I won't answer the phone. I certainly don't answer calls from the Number 1 caller, "Out Of Area".

    And best of luck to anyone trying to sell windows to my answering machine.

  • My first "Survey" call was yesterday (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:25PM (#7158199) Homepage Journal
    -- this is such a huge gap in the law. The call went something like, "Hello Mr. Foo, this is National First Mortgage and we are conducting a survey of people to see who would like to refinance..." That is where I hung up.

    I expect as the number of telemarketing calls I receive drop, the number of surveys will increase.

  • Why this will cost jobs... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Uhlek ( 71945 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:27PM (#7158208)
    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.
    • Any foreign telemarketing company has a weak point, getting paid by a customer in the USA. The federal government and the credit card companies can block much of the money that flows from the USA to the companies in question.
    • I'm not saying anyone deserves to lose a job. I'm not saying any business should go out of business.

      Am i the only one who notices that any big and successful businesses either ... tailor to the needs of the local area, like construction companies, pizza places, book stores or on a large corporate scale. ... have multiple income revenue streams in different markets or subsections of their market, like beverage companies in the soda biz and non soda biz, or IBM, who does consulting and manufactures both sof
    • The second loophole really isn't a loophole per se, but a simple and unfortunante fact that US law does not affect those overseas. Calls originating in India from a corporation headquartered in the Bahamas won't be affected by this law.

      While the US doesn't make international law, it is quite accepted policy that courts have jurisdiction over actions taken specifically against those inside their territory. Unlike SPAM, where you could reasoably argue you did not know where it is going, a US phone number is
  • All of those pre-recorded telemarketing calls have been illegal [junkbusters.com] for 12 years and nobody would bust them. I hope the bigger fines will get somebody, somewhere interested in seeking out and fining the scofflaws.

  • I solved it the easy way... (Score:4, Informative)

    by NecroPuppy ( 222648 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:32PM (#7158244) Homepage
    All I've got left is a cell phone. No land line.

    And the cost difference is $5... Less!
  • Can't they just move their company to a foreign country that allows telemarketing calls to the US? VOIP makes things even cheaper for them, not to mention having cheaper labor.

    thinking about this. I wouldn't even sign up for the registry when a computer can now be used to screen your calls. It might just help those offshore telemarketing companies in annoying you at dinner if they can easily access the registry without even paying!

    • ...as long as there is someone in the US who hired the off-shore callers.

      The rules cover this [ftc.gov]

      "Similarly, it makes no difference whether the calls are made from outside the United States; so long as they are made to consumers in the United States, those making the calls, unless otherwise exempt, must comply with the TSR's provisions."

  • A few random thoughts.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by windows ( 452268 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:46PM (#7158353)
    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.

    • Re:A few random thoughts.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmowire ( 254489 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @08:16PM (#7158533) Homepage
      See, here's the problem.

      You are a rational person. You *know* that if somebody says no, they probably mean no.

      It's a bad parallel to draw, but telemarketers are the type of person who thinks that if the girl says no, they just need another drink or two. Telemarketers are not people like you and me. Every number they can't call is a person who just doesn't want to admit yet that they want whatever they are selling. Because they know that whatever useless cooking gadget that breaks in 2 weeks or less, credit card, mortgage refinancing, etc. that they are trying to sell, everybody who hears about it wants it. If they could, they'd call each and every person on the do not call list because they figure that nobody else will and they *know* you will love whatever it is that they are selling.

      The overall problem is that the presence of the DNC list makes it pretty clear that all of the lines that the telemarketers have been feeding their clients and lobying legislators about are all lies. They don't call legislators, you know, so they have no normal way of knowing how bad it is. Their clients were under the impression that they were not universally reviled, just that a disproportionately noisy bunch of people were annoyed. So even if it makes their business better, they can't afford to let it lie. I have a sneaking suspicion that even if the DNC list isn't constitutional, it will discourage legitimate companies from dealing with telemarketers.
      • I'd like to mention that all salespeople are like this. That's why I can't sell anything I don't believe in. I don't have any problem selling something to someone for more than it's worth or more than you can get it for elsewhere, because let's face it, you have to be some kind of asshole not to be able to do research. We need two kinds of stupid people in this world, one to make hamburgers (I worked at Wendy's for a while when I was young(er) and I don't think I'm an idiot but my point stands, and I'm not
    • Consider this, if your number is on the DNC list, chances are you weren't likely to buy much from a telemarketer, anyways.

      That is true in general, but has some exceptions. In particular, it seems that telemarketers are afraid to lose the customers who can be talked into buying anything and are too polite to firmly refuse talking to a telemarketer.

    • There's also the issue of people who are signed up for the DNC list by others; for example, your elderly parents/grandparents might be losing touch a little bit, and thus be easier prey for hard-selling telemarketers. The DNC list lets people protect their family in situations like that, which means less profit for the telemarketers.

      Besides, it's not like they'll really gain much from eliminating the absolute no-sell customers; those take almost no time for the telemarketers, so there's almost no cost for

  • We've found that the existing Direct Marketer's association do-not-call list was very efffective at eliminating sales calls. But we live in California, and I must be an important voter, because I received AUTOMATED calls from the following on Sunday (yes all in one day):
    • Sharon Davis (Governor's wife
    • Barbara Striesand (sp?) Well known democrat
    • Bill Clinton
    • Al Gore

    And Joe Lieberman for good measure on Monday. The end of one of the messages listed the local democratic party as one of the funders, so I gav

  • my stategy against telemarketers (Score:3, Informative)

    by civilengineer ( 669209 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @07:52PM (#7158402) Homepage Journal
    I have a land line that I never connect to a phone. Its just for internet use. But, whenever I am filling out forms and providing phone numbers in applicatios, I give out this number.
    I have a cell phone for all communication purposes and I only give out that number to the people who can call me. Once in a while, very rarely telmarketers call on the cell number too, but if I tell them they are calling me on my cell phone, they hang up and never call back.
  • Apparently this is a little known fact, but for those of you still recieving calls after the 1st of October; perhaps you should be aware that the list is only issued to Telemarketing Firms quarterly. What does this mean to you? Well if you signed up after September 1st, then your name will not be on the list that goes into effect on October 1st. Instead, your name will be on the list that is issued on January 1st. Just a little clarification.

  • Well, we all know what this will end up in.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deniea ( 257313 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @08:21PM (#7158571)
    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...

  • EPIC DNC Timeline Online (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    EPIC has a handy timeline of Do-Not-Call Registry events at http://epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/dnc/ [epic.org]
  • I'd think them telemarketeers would appriciate the reduction of numbers they call that would likely result in a hang up, and the people who can't say no to sales people should have a way to say no indirectly.

    What this conflict does is just expose those who are in the business of selling names/number lists as I'm sure it will reduce their income by reducing the amount of what they sell.

  • ....if I could only talk to the telemarketers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TPFH ( 92944 ) on Tuesday October 07, 2003 @08:50PM (#7158774) Homepage Journal
    Now I can sue the telemarketers, if someone ever gets on the line that is. A few weeks ago I decided to just start f#*$ing with the telemarketers. Sound like I'm interested, and keep them on the line for a while and then just start meowing.

    What I've discovered is that most of the time when I pick up the phone and say hello I just hear clicks and then it hangs up on me. I get like 8 calls a day like this and most of the time never get to speak to someone. I finally got sick of it and did a *77 [qwest.com] which is supposed to block calls without caller ID info but I'm guessing it only works for the Private (ie blocked) calls and not the Unavailable calls that come from most telemarketers.

    I understand that computers do the actual dialing and they call multiple people and the first to answer and trigger the voice recognition software gets to the actual telemarketing drone but even when I answer on the first ring and start saying "Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello?...." it still hangs up on me.

    Anyone else experiencing this?
    • most of the time when I pick up the phone and say hello I just hear clicks and then it hangs up on me

      They're breaking the law [ftc.gov]:

      Abandoned calls often result from the telemarketers' use of predictive dialers to call consumers.

      [...]
      Under the Rule's definition, an outbound telephone call is "abandoned" if a person answers it and the telemarketer does not connect the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the person's completed greeting. The use of pre-recorded message telemarketing, where a

  • You pick up, and telemarketer babbles on at you for a while. Before they get to their yes/no question, you interrupt with:

    "Hold on! Back up. --What was that last part? I missed that."

    When Telemarketer repeats, immediately interrupt again.

    "No, no, no. Before that. Where are you calling from?"

    Telemarketer pauses, tells you.

    Immediately ask another inane question to keep them off balance. I like to use: "No kidding? Where is that? Do you actually work there, or are you calling from somewhere else?

  • stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @12:11AM (#7160138) Journal
    It amazes me how stupid net-savvy people are when it comes to reading laws.

    Note to the author of the writeup:
    This list is only going to save you from telemarketing "cold calls" which are usually calls from newspapers asking you to sign up.

    This is not going to get rid of calls from people calling on behalf of the phone company, your credit card, or your bank.

    This is also not going to get rid of the police and fire dept. "cold calls" that you get from time to time.

    If anything, this list is a great way to give illegitimate telemarketing enterprises a free list of names. If you notice an *increase* in telemarketing calls, you'll think back to my response here and slap your forehead.

    And if you think you can turn these companies in by yourself, that's great. Just try starting a lawsuit. Let's see how far you get before you give up cause of the time you have to put into it. My guess is you'll start looking at the annoyance of calls as simple compared to the annoyance of trying to figure out exactly *who* it is that you can sue.

    If you have ever posted with "IANAL" you're basically SOL.

  • Just don't hang up! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @01:11AM (#7160433) Homepage
    One way to screw telemarketing companies is to simply leave your phone off the hook. This holds open the switch at the exchange so even when they hang up and pick the phone up again, it is still connected to your line. This is why you are told not to hang up if there is a bomb threat - it keeps the connection open so they cannot use the phone again, and allows the phone company/police to track the line even if it is spoofed.

    It means that you've tied up that particular phone line until YOU decide to hang up. In my case, since I don't get many calls to my landline and people who know me call my mobile, I can leave it open a LOOOONNNGGG time! :)

    If everyone did this, instead of the first reaction (to hang up), they would soon be immobilised.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (3) Ha, ha, I can't believe they're actually going to adopt this sucker.

Close