FTC Extends Deadline on National DNC List Comments 17
Controlio writes: "The FTC is proposing a national do-not-call list to help keep telemarketing under control. More info is available in HTML or PDF, and the rule is available in PDF as well. The FTC has extended the deadline for comment until April 15th, and they are asking for your comments via e-mail. A snail mail address is also available. Many of the public comments can be viewed here, and it looks like the telemarketers are spamming the list with a pre-written script, for an example, look under "T". FOX News and CNN have old stories on this as well, but CNN is re-airing the story today. Finally, someone sticking up for those of us who get over 10 calls per day."
Spamming the list (Score:2)
Make "Do not call" default (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Make "Do not call" default (Score:2)
The Network effect (Score:1)
You are perhaps familiar with the network effect? The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected nodes. By keeping your number out of the published directory, you are disconnecting yourself from most of the network and thus reducing its overall value. That's the high-toned philosophical explanation for why the telephone company charges you for an unlisted number.
The more prosaic reason is because a lot more people will call directory assistance in an attempt to get your number.
I don't necessarily agree with these reasons, but they're consistent.
Re:Make "Do not call" default (Score:1)
We already have a "Yes, call me" list -- it's the telephone directory. It's just the default setting that you want to change.
wow (Score:2, Informative)
Restricts calling times to the hours between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.
Requires telemarketers to tell you it's a sales call and who's doing the selling before they make their pitch.
Prohibits telemarketers from lying or misrepresenting any information"
Well now that would be refreshing, wouldn't it?
Major Change: Email will be officially classified (Score:3, Interesting)
is one of the major changes that this rule will make. I do not know what the rules are for Direct Mail, but you can bet it would allow spammers some legal lattitude that they currently do not have... Email should not be classified as DIRECT MAIL in this ruling - it's almost tacked on. They should make a completely seperate ruling for email, preferably clarifying that it is unlike mail and facsimile in major ways...
-Adam
Make it Opt-Out (Score:2)
Put every possible phone number [(000)000-0000 to (999)999-9999] on the list and make people opt-out of it annualy (because phone numbers can be re-assigned).
Yeah, that'll be the day pigs fly out my butt, too (chasing the monkeys that flew out when they put restrictions on what info banks can share).
What they are asking (Score:3, Interesting)
How long should a telephone number remain on the national "do not call" registry?
As long as the phone number is owned by the same person.
Who should be permitted to request that a telephone number be placed on the "do not call" registry? Should requests from the line subscriber's spouse or adult child be permitted? Should third parties (outside the FTC) be permitted to collect and forward requests to be put on the "do not call" registry?
Anybody who might have to answer the phone should be able to put it on the list.
What security measures are appropriate and necessary to ensure that only those people who want to place their telephone numbers on the "do not call" registry can do so? Should consumers be able to verify that their numbers have been placed on the registry? If so, how?
You must have access to that phone to put the number on the list. This could by done by using caller id or by calling the number and verifying that the person wants to be put on the list. ("Please press one if you don't want to be called by telemarketers.")
Should the "do not call" registry be an "all or nothing" option or should it instead allow consumers to specify the days or time of day that they are willing to accept telemarketing calls?
All or nothing is fine with me.
The proposed rule would permit consumers or donors who place their name and telephone number on the "do not call" registry to provide express verifiable authorization to specific sellers or organizations to make calls to them. How will this requirement affect those entities with which a consumer or donor has a pre-existing relationship?
They should have to ask for express verifiable authorization. Somebody is likely to go on this list to get away from people they have a pre-existing relationship with.
Good idea, but it'll be loopholed. (Score:3, Informative)
Also, according to the proposal, an individual company would be allowed to call you, even if you placed your number on the registry, as long as you gave the company your express verifiable authorization to do so - for example, by giving them written permission to call you.
This will end up just like that bogus "privacy" Act that went into effect a year or two ago. For every service you subscribe to, the ultra-fine print will have a clause like, "You hereby give the Company, and all of its Affiliates [read: anyone we want to sell the list to], permission to call you so that we may provide your service efficiently."
Can you believe the whining some of these "employees" are making on the comments page? I love this one, as it's particularly bleeding-heart:
" As an employee of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I am writing to state my opposition to the FTC's proposed changes to the TSR. Passage of this new rule will negatively impact my company and it's employees. My job is important to me; I am a single mother with a family and I am concerned about losing my job if you pass the proposed changes. Despite current publicity and perceptions, telemarketing provides a service for individuals and offers a variety of services and products to customers. The majority of customers we call want to hear about our services and if they are not interested, they say so. If they want to be put on a DNC list, we gladly honor their request. I think the current company practices, along with the State DNC and DMA DNC lists should be sufficient to regulate do not call requests. Adding another list would just be more confusing for customers. Thank you for allowing my input. I hope you will consider the negative impact this could have on business industry and the economy! Sincerely, Carol J. Darling"
(Emphasis mine) Can you buy that? I worked for a small company once, and had to support a Sales department. One lunch I got into a debate about the role of sales. The guy honestly believed that society, the economy, and the universe would fall apart if there were no salesmen to peddle products.
And how the hell can having one centralized list be more confusing that maintaing a list of who you asked to put your number on their Do Not Call list? Sheesh!
Boo-freakin-hoo, Carol! Maybe you shouldn't have picked such a slime-bag job.
Maybe its just me (Score:1)
DNC List (Score:1)
I do think telemarketers should be prohibited from obscuring their caller id information. Again I think the states should be doing it.
Unfortunately, this list is worthless... (Score:1)
I'm all for less/no telemarketing, but this "do-not-call registry" has so many exceptions and loopholes, I can't see it being much of a help.
"Beales said the FTC lacks jurisdiction to restrict telemarketing calls from telephone companies, banks, nonprofit groups, insurance companies, and companies making calls within an individual state's borders." [link] [google.com]
I believe there are actually even more exceptions, this is just the 1st article Google found...
My comment to the FTC basically says "Put some teeth in this thing, then get back to me."
It would be far more effective... (Score:1)
... to encourage widespread popularity of the Telemarketer Game [netfunny.com].
The game all the family can play! Destroy a business model while watching TV! I think that phone companies should provide a service where they announce your Telemarketer Game score after each call. Then we can all post our scores on Slashdot and brag about them.
At first... (Score:2)