FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

netringer writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is proposing some new regulations creating a national 'Do Not Call' list to keep US phones from being rung by telemarketers. Telemarketers who call a number on the list could be fined up $11,000. The new FTC rules also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled and limit abandoned 'hang up' calls from predictive dialers. The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before. The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities."

The answer?

[FunkSoulBrother]

Perhaps the guy who just asked slashdot has his answer.

Potentional Loss of Buying Opportunities?

[Cyclopedian]

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Please. All the telemarketers want to sell you are 'insurance', aluminum siding, and all unwanted assorted crap. I'm an informed consumer and if there's something I want to get, I'll find it and get it myself, thank you.

-Cyc

Re:Now

[archeopterix]

For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.

Unenforcible, and it would be a great source of e-mail addresses for spammers. Ironic, isn't it?

Sueing on what basis

[phorm]

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Seems to me that if you took the time to sign up for this list, then you would be just plain pissed off by any further telemarketer calls, and thus not likely to purchase anything anyways. No customer lost here.

Now, if they really want to advertise, I've found those washroom/urinal advertising signs to be quite effective as most men prefer to look straight forward and having something to read helps prevent the possibility of peripheral vision eye-wandering.

Don't call me

[Student_Tech]

I'll call you if I want something your service offers. To quote one of my parents "We don't do business over the phone" (unless we made the call).

They'll be opt-in calls from now on...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the recording or shpiel will start out, "You agreed to receive this call...."

Barrier to Entry

[mr.crutch]

The FTC can't reasonably regulate international companies, that's why.

The trouble with a "Do Not Spam" list is that there is no international barrier to entry for any of these spammers. If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper).

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant. The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls. The FTC could try to regulate Spam, but the are just too many loopholes to be successful.

For email and addresses

[xombo]

Why don't they do this with email and physical addresses so people wont mail you or email you, and maybe keeping away door to door salesmen too.

But....

[www.sorehands.com]

It could also be made to be illegal to use spammers! Make companies that hire spammers liable for the same damages as the spammer. That will take away from the spammer's income stream.

Re:Barrier to Entry

[Large Green Mallard]

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant.

Keep in mind, a growing number of companies in the US are moving their call centres to India... it can't be TOO expensive :/

Re:Maybe, but

[archeopterix]

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time.

Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic? Unfortunately this is not that simple. Well, there is a partial solution - a trusted organization that keeps the list and only answers queries about e-mail addresses. Or just publishing hashes of the prohibited e-mails. But this is only partial.

It is *NOT* a Free Speech Issue

[zentec]

Free speech gives you the right to go out on the corner, stand on the soap box and have at it.

Free speech does not give you the right to enter onto private propery and spout whatever it is you want to spout. Malls, theatres, business, they all apply and it applies equally when you _call_ my private property on _my_ phone. It's nice how the greatest share of cost in telemarketing is heaped upon the person that pays for the incoming line.

I hope this goes before the Supreme Court. It won't because the argument that it restricts free speech is patently absurd.

Has anyone anywhere

[happyhippy]

actually bought anything from a telemarketer?

"Yes, I would like to buy life insurance/cemorative plates/double glazing/magazine subscription from some company Ive known about a whole 30 seconds!

Re:Has anyone anywhere

[danitor]

Well, actually a lot more people buy from telemarketers than you might think. I used to work for a telemarketing firm, I'd sell about 3 or four credit card insurance packages an hour. The really nefarious stuff was the Metris 66+ hour, selling to the elderly. Needless to say, I've switched "careers" I'm now Danitor, museum Janitor.

it's kinda like people buying penis pumps from the spam king, I guess.
Danitor

a new kind of telemarketing

[dAzED1]

ok, I skimmed through, and saw that while there were lots of redundant posts on other things, I couldn't find one bringing up this particular point. So here goes:

to quote the article, A company can call someone on the list if that person has bought, leased or rented something from the seller within 18 months. Telemarketers also can call consumers if they have inquired or applied for something during the last three months.

If you read between the lines, you might find that there are certain companies that can easily still call you, even if you register. I bet, for instance, that AOL/TW can simply restructure their telemarketting, and get away with calling anyone still. Do you really think you can casually go without buying anything from AOL/TW for 18 months? That's a long time, for such a large company.

seems to me this will mean that larger corporations will still be able to call you, since they will have sold you something in the last 18 months, whereas smaller companies that do not have the product diversity or proliferation will not be able to. I would not at all be suprized to find AOL/TW, Disney, Micrsoft, or folks along those lines behind this regulation.

of course, I'm feeling pretty conspiracy-theoristic (like that word?) today.

Senile parents loophole?

[Gorimek]

Maybe it's that children would put their senile and easily defrauded parents on the list, and thus remove the easiest prey from the game.

Idaho's State Opt-Out law

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican dominated pols here passed an opt-out law re telemarketers. You have to pay $10 to get your name on the list and it's good for 3 years. Then you get to pay out again.

All so a telemarketer won't call you on your phone and cost you time and aggravation.

Thanks a lot for nothing. Best watch the FTC/FCC carefully 'cause you know the pols on both sides of the aisles are gonna really water this one down too.

Re:Telezapper...

[FatAlb3rt]

...$5 a month...it's apparently been working great

Especially for the telephone company WHO SOLD THE NUMBER IN THE FIRST PLACE!! Now they profit again each month.

I should hope so.

[bmetzler]

The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before.

Don't you think that having permission somehow implies consent? Why should a company be sued because you told them they could call you? If you told me I had permission to take your old Athlon 1600+ because you upgraded to an Athlon 2800+, and I took it, do you think that a court would rule that giving permission wasn't the same as actually saying I could take it?

Furthermore, if you were a customer before, don't think that has value to a company? They would want to be able to keep in touch with you in the future. I certainly know that as a consultant my business is heavily dependent on calling previous customers to find out if they have new projects.

-Brent

Do not call, do not sue, do not pass go...

[mttlg]

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

So now we need to get a national "do not sue on my behalf" list before we can get a national "I don't want a fucking Disney vacation, you worthless low-life answering machine spamming piece of scum" list? Yeah, I know, then the lawyers will sue because of the "potential loss of lawsuit opportunities." How about just a "Go to hell, DMA!" list? "Potential loss of buying opportunities?" Wouldn't that apply to the time that is wasted by telemarketers trying to sell me something I don't want when I could be researching or buying something I do want? Can I sue the DMA for causing this "potential loss of buying opportunities?"

Re:But....

[multimed]

That's exactly what I've been arguing for some time. For the most part, unsolicited spam is illegal, but it's not enforcable because the spammers change ISPs and/or are offshore, so they can't be found or punished. But there is almost always a contact of some sort in the email in order for the "customer" to give the company money. Businesses are knowingly paying some one to do something illegal, so they should be held culpable too. It's no different that holding a company that knowingly sells stolen goods liable. Just because they aren't the ones breaking the law doesn't mean they can profit from the crime.

this is awesome!

[schematix]

Since i work from home i am lucky enough to answer just about every call I receive. I really hope this do not call list gets implemented. It is annoying as hell to receive 10+ calls a day, and even worse is that 9 of those times it is just a machine recording! If they can waste my work day i'd like some sort of compensation for it, or at least a way to opt-out of it.

Good way to deal with Telemarkers.

[Anonymous Coward]

When they call, if they ask to speak with you or anyone else in the house, just say "Hold please, let me go get him/her", at that point, simply set the phone down and resume doing whatever it was you were doing.

It runs up their telephone costs..I've had the morons sit there for upwards of 2-3 minutes before they hung up.

They usually don't call back.

Remember the good old days...

[4/3PI*R^3]

Rember when the phone system was only a simple person-to-person communication system?
1. In came the telemarketers
2. Next came legislation restriction the time of calls
3. Then came Caller-ID (for a fee) to allow you to know who was calling before you answered
4. Then came Caller-ID block (per use or permanently on your line for a fee) to allow you to block your Caller-ID information.
5. Then came Anonymous Call Block (for a fee) so that anonymous telemarketers could not call your number.

Let's recap:
1. The phone company charges you and the telemarketer for person-to-person communication.
2. The phone company sells your phone number to telemarketers.
3. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to identify who is calling before you answer.
4. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method of hiding who you are.
5. The phone company sells you and the telemarketer a method to block calls that are blocked.
6. We have to spend our tax dollars to compile a list of numbers that telemarketers can't call.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with this system? Isn't this like creating a war and then selling arms to both sides?

Re:Now

[Mac Degger]

The difference is that spam is always bad, and circumventing copyright protection has many ambiguous and good uses.

Comparing DMCA and anti-spam laws can't be done, as they aren't equal.

Re:Colorado do-not-call list

[Junta]

It isn't in their best interest though. Everyone would jump on the do-not-call list. A lot of people say they never would buy from a telemarketer, but they sometimes cave, and that is what they would stand to lose. Don't like telemarketers, and I honestly don't listen to anyone, but I can see their logic.

The worst telemarketters ever...

[Elwood P Dowd]

are the cops.

Some local foundation for police benefits was calling around asking for donations. Since they're a nonprofit, and perhaps government linked, they've got all kinds of special legal leeway with telemarketting. I think.

They called me four fucking times in two days:

"In these troubling times, do you feel that it's important to give our police officers all the support they need?"
"Uh. I guess. Could you please put me on your do not call list?"
"Oh. Sure."
"Thanks." [click]

The next day, I got an identical call (different voice every time). Ten minutes later, another guy called.

"I've asked you to put me on your do not call list twice already. How come you keep calling me?"
"I'm sorry sir, I see you as a new number on my computer."
"Well, I'm not. Is there something you can do about this? Clearly something is the matter with your computer system."
"Well, I'll mark your number this time."
"Thanks, But I'd..." [click] (cut off)

Then, a half an hour later, I got another new voice. I interrupted him in middle of his pitch:

"I'm sorry, this is the fourth time someone has called me for your fundraiser, and every single time I've told them to put me on the do not call list. I understand that your computer says that I'm a new number, but it's wrong. At this point, I'm concerned that you're operating your fundraiser in violation of FCC regulation..." (cut off)

"Well. I can see why they didn't put your name on the no call list, asshole." [click]

There were no more calls, though. I think the fundraiser ended. All the voices were men, so I guess it was off duty cops that were doing the calling. That would explain the attitude. I swear, I was perfectly polite with every single call. Until the last one, I guess. Thugs.

Re:Now

[arkanes]

This is not a technological problem. It's a social problem. Buisnesses assume that you want thier products and attentions, even in the face of your denials. Imagine, if you will, a really annoying guy following you around the mall. You have every right to NOT be harrassed by him, and, likewise, you have every right to not be contacted by people you don't wish to be contacted by. When you tell someone that you aren't interested in thier product, they should be obliged to no long attempt to sell it to you - thats the point of these do not call lists, and that would be the point of a no-spam list. Note that spam is, by definition, commercial email, not private correspondance, so this isn't a freedom of expression issue.

Sadly, both spammers and telemarketers are pretty much totally morally bankrupt people - both buisnesses are based on the idea that if you bug someone enough, they'll give you money to go away.

This is backwards...

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of a Do-not-call list, any unsolicited calls or emails should be illegal. There should be an OK-TO-CALL list. If called by a buisness that at any point tries to solicit your interest in an "opportunity" "survey" or "product", a "contribution" or information related to any of the above. I should have to explicitly say it's ok to call me, not the other way around.

Define free...

[douglips]

Don't you pay for Caller ID? If this is a "free" part of Caller ID, you're still paying for it.

Re:Now

[Melantha_Bacchae]

bethenco wrote:

> As for the issue of outlawing spam, here's another way of looking at. If a computer is setup
> to accept connections over the network and runs software that relays or saves electronic messages
> sent to it, then it's fair game. The owner of the machine has set it up that way with the
> knowledge that they have no control over what signals might be coming down that cable. When
> designing any sort of system that involves machines under the control of different people, we
> have to assume that if the system is in any way vulnerable to malicious or abusive uses, those
> uses will be exploited. We can't rely on the government to hold together broken security.

Just like when we take those machines with four wheels and internal combustion engines down the road, we do so with the knowledge that we have no control over the sobriety, state of mind, courtesy, or experience of the other drivers. In fact, we have to assume that some of them are going to be drunk and try to kill us. So do we just let the drunks and reckless drivers kill people, and blame it on a fault of automotive security (steering wheels let cars be driven into other cars)?

Sorry, but if you "children" can't be civil, daddy (government) is going to have to lay down the law to keep the peace. In fact, that is one of the few decent reasons to have a government: so civilization doesn't turn into a bunch of idiots clubbing each other to death. (Note: this is commonly deemed to be undesirable.)

If people can't discipline themselves to maintain appropriate speeds, drive safely, and stay sober, awake, and attentive throughout the driving process; speed limits, fines, etc. get imposed to tone down the death count. Similarly, if greedy gluts can't quit monopolizing the world's lines of person to person communcation (phone, snail mail, and email) to feed their greed; the government is going to have to take some kind of measures to keep them open for their intended purpose.

Personally, I would rather the government be kept far from the internet. But that is ceasing to be an option, thanks to leaches that make millions and build mansions out of stuffing the email system full of horrible junk. If you don't like the government messing with the internet, go thank the spam kings and the slimy pyramid schemers who don't know how to behave.

"What do you think Mothra would do?"
Moll, "Mosura" 1996

What really needs to be done.

[ksemlerK]

Is to ban all forms of telephone solicitiation by any company, for profit of not. Instead of having a national DNC list, we should have an OICL nation wide. (DNC is DO Not Call, OICL is Opt-In Caller List) Anyone who is not on the OICL should not be called. I used to telemarket, so I know what they do, and the lies they tell. I will tell you this: No matter what they say, never buy a program called: Mainstreet Savings, Galleria, Premier Health Plus, Simple Escapes, or 24 Protect Plus. Even if it is only $9.95/Mo. They are scams. They are money traps. Let everyone know. Write your congressman, lets get this bill passed!