U.S. National Do-Not-Call Registry On the Way? 563
WinkyN writes "Yay! The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a measure that creates a national "do not call" list for telemarketers. Telemarketers are required to check the list every three months and can be fined up to $11,000 each time they violate the law. Now I won't have to ignore my telephone when it rings since more than 50 percent of my calls are from telemarketers." Congress is just getting around to passing a budget bill to run the government for fiscal year 2003 (started last October), and we're now in the time period when everything and the kitchen sink gets thrown into it just before it passes. Good to know that there's at least one useful piece of legislation.
Confusion on Budget for This (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Informative)
"Take me off your list" (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't gotten a telemarketing call in years.
Calls by Telemarketers (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure though, that it's illegal. or something like that, for TMs to call cells. If it is, and if people could afford it, it seems like the way to go. Just my opinion I guess.
It violates no law (Score:2, Informative)
Not expected to pass the Senate (Score:4, Informative)
I worked as a telemarketer... (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Number is H.R. 395 (Score:4, Informative)
And for those who don't understand how laws work in the US, this just means that now it gets to go over to the Senate, who then may or may not approve it, who can then approve it with amendments, send it back to the House for further approval in a committee or two, and eventually send it off to the President to sign into law.
And this has little to do with H.J.Res. 2 which is the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that is currently in committee. Well, other than dealing with money.
AN ACT
To authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees for the implementation and enforcement of a `do-not-call' registry, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Do-Not-Call Implementation Act'.
SEC. 2. TELEMARKETING SALES RULE; DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY FEES.
The Federal Trade Commission may promulgate regulations establishing fees sufficient to implement and enforce the provisions relating to the `do-not-call' registry of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)), promulgated under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.). Such regulations shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code. Fees may be collected pursuant to this section for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, and shall be deposited and credited as offsetting collections to the account, Federal Trade Commission--Salaries and Expenses, and shall remain available until expended. No amounts shall be collected as fees pursuant to this section for such fiscal years except to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts. Such amounts shall be available for expenditure only to offset the costs of activities and services related to the implementation and enforcement of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and other activities resulting from such implementation and enforcement.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DO-NOT-CALL REGULATIONS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall issue a final rule pursuant to the rulemaking proceeding that it began on September 18, 2002, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.). In issuing such rule, the Federal Communications Commission shall consult and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to maximize consistency with the rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (16 CFR 310.4(b)).
SEC. 4. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) REPORT ON REGULATORY COORDINATION- Within 45 days after the promulgation of a final rule by the Federal Communications Commission as required by section 3, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission shall each transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report which shall include--
(1) an analysis of the telemarketing rules promulgated by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission;
(2) any inconsistencies between the rules promulgated by each such Commission and the effect of any such inconsistencies on consumers, and persons paying for access to the registry; and
(3) proposals to remedy any such inconsistencies.
(b) ANNUAL REPORT- For each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission shall each transmit an annual report to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report which shall include--
(1) an analysis of the effectiveness of the `do-not-call' registry as a national registry;
(2) the number of consumers who have placed their telephone numbers on the registry;
(3) the number of persons paying fees for access to the registry and the amount of such fees;
(4) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the `do-not-call' registry with similar registries established and maintained by the various States;
(5) an analysis of the progress of coordinating the operation and enforcement of the `do-not-call' registry with the enforcement activities of the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.); and
(6) a review of the enforcement proceedings under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 CFR 310), in the case of the Federal Trade Commission, and under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.), in the case of the Federal Communications Commission.
Passed the House of Representatives February 12, 2003.
Attest:
Clerk.
Re:Confusion on Budget for This (Score:5, Informative)
And to the telemarketers who cry, "this is going to kill our business," one can only reply "Exactly!".
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you can get the same effect by simply whistling loudly into the phone when you answer it. Recently, after signing up for a credit card, I started getting all sorts of telemarketing calls. My caller ID would be filled with dozens of 'NO ID' on a daily basis. Instead of ingoring them, I started picking up and whistling loudly. In several other events, I just picked up and answered (followed by the routing delay). When they asked for me by name, I simply asked them to put me on their do not call list.
The calls subsided in less than two weeks.
The problem with this new law is that the US legislature is for sale. The politicians have squeezed every last drop out of the telemarketing industry prior to making this law. Now, they will have new ground to bargain with. Loopholes around this new law will be the next big cash cow.
For 5 bucks a month.. (Score:3, Informative)
I actually got this service because some automated computer system in another state had my number in it to automatically call to do some kind of batch processing (someone fat fingered the number obviously..). So every day, twice a day at exactly 10am and 3pm, I'd get a call with no answer. Since it was out of area, Verizon couldn't specifically block it (or so they told me), but they offered this service. For 5 bucks a month I figured what the hell, but I also noticed that now that I have the service in place, I never get telemarketing calls anymore.
It also has a feature if in case someone you know who regularually calls you has an out of area or private number can enter a simple 4 digit pin to automatically be put through without leaving a message and waiting for me to accept.
I've had the service for about 6 months now, and it's been worth the $5/mo I've paid for it. Maybe with this Do-Not-Call list I won't need it anymore provided this batch machine no longer calls my number anymore..I doubt it though, considering telemarketing companies will lobby to have some kind of end run around it..
Non Cold Calls (Score:3, Informative)
For instance I have AT&T digital cable, however I get telemarketing calls from AT&T broadband which is a different subdivision in AT&T.
I started by yelling at the guy that he isn't supposed to Telemarket to Cell phone, since it is illegal, then he informed me that since I'm a Digital cable customer my contract gives them the right to. I then asked him to take me off of their call list, he informed me that because he is not part of the Digital Cable subdivision he doesn't have that authority. I hung up.
It's crap.
Worthless, thanks to loopholes (Score:1, Informative)
Opting out of credit card solicitations (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.equifax.com
http://www.experian.com
http://www.tuc.com
Re:Not expected to pass the Senate (Score:2, Informative)
Re:3 months (Score:2, Informative)
I should also note that once the list became active the number of calls I was receiving dropped down from 3 or 4 a day to less than 2 a week.
Not out of the woods yet! (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure of how to contact your senator (or who he/she is)? United States Senate [senate.gov]
Re:But I love telemarketers (Score:5, Informative)
I think people would benefit from an explanation of why telemarketers do what they do.
Why do they take so long to talk??
A telemarketer doesn't do any dialing. They sit at a dummy terminal and are presented with a contact's information as the contact picks up the phone. ie, they not only don't dial your number, they don't even hear the rings -- just you saying "LLO? HELLO???"
Why do they keep calling me? I already said no!
Each, I think it was called program or whatever (I only worked their for a few weeks, please forgive me) they call it lasts until the contacts are "exhausted." Exhausted doesn't mean everyone has been called, it means the sale rate drops below a certain percentage. When you call and say no, your name gets thrown at the end of the list. Right along side the people who had answering machines, the people who weren't home, and the people who said maybe later. You're going to be called until enough people stop saying "sure, I'll take one."
Why are they still calling me?? I said take me off your list!
It'll be done, just relax. When you do this, ask the name of their company and document it. I recommend keeping a little pad of paper with these things along with the time and date you request it. 6 months later, go ahead and talk to your lawyer.
I know THAT guy won't call me again!
That guy doesn't have a choice -- you'll either come up on his console randomly or you won't (most likely the latter; it'll be one of the other 10419 people he's sitting with). I'll encourage you to remember these are 14 year old kids trying to save up for a car when they turn 16, not the greedy businessmen that fabricated the annoyances. Sometimes that's not enough to curb the desire to be a dickhead, so also remember this: these 14 year olds don't care what you say to them. They're getting paid minimum wage to be there and make very little commision. They've been desensitised by 10000 callers before, and I guarentee you:
You aren't that clever.
Now, on with people's wit. Show me how great you got them, geniouses.
Re:maybe OT: Guy that plays with telemarketers? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.transunion.com/content/page.jsp?id=/pe
Here are instructions on how to stop credit card applications.
Opt-Out Contact Information
TransUnion wants to help companies give American consumers the choices they want. This choice includes the right to say, "No, thank you" to their offers.
If you want your name and address removed from mailing lists obtained from the main consumer credit reporting agencies -- TransUnion, Experian, Equifax, and Innovis -- call 888-5OPTOUT (888-567-8688), or write to the following address:
TransUnion LLC's Name Removal Option
P.O. Box 97328
Jackson, MS 39288-7328
Include the following information with your request:
* First, middle, and last names (including Jr., Sr., III)
* Current address
* Previous address (if you've moved in the last six months)
* Social Security number
* Date of birth
* Signature
Two anti-telemarketing scripts (Score:3, Informative)
Serious script [junkbusters.com]
Fun script [xs4all.nl]
Re:NYS Do Not Call Registry (Score:4, Informative)
Homepage (Score:2, Informative)
Here is the home page for it. Keep it bookmarked!
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/i"Terrorizing Telemarketers" (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.jimflorentine.com/home.html [jimflorentine.com]
He also plays the "Special Ed" character on Crank Yankers.
Re:"Take me off your list" (Score:5, Informative)
If, however, you make a decent salary, open a new credit card account or two, buy and/or refinance your home, and cycle 10-30% in bohemian bourgeoisie charges (computers, vacations, fancy espresso machines) through your cards annually, you'd soon discover that you're considered ripe fruit.
You'll get 10 calls a day, profiled according to when you're most likely to pick up the phone (i.e. home from work, reading your kids a story, or otherwise enjoying peace and quiet). Of course I can use the exercise but running through the house to check the caller ID isn't quite what I had in mind.
While I generally don't need mommy and daddy government to tuck me in bed at night, the fact is, under the current system, there is no theoretical limit to the number of calls I could get. That is, I tell one company not to call me, but there could be 300 more out there buying or otherwise scavenging my number. A national DNC list establishes a single choke point, something that your suggestion does not.
And before anyone starts in on me, I have followed advice from junkbusters and written 20+ letters to everyone from my bank to the credit agencies to the credit card companies instructing them not to share my address or phone number, and I still get 15 calls per week. Even my 2-year-old got junk mail from Disney and MSN (thanks to the bastards at zoobooks [zoobooks.com] selling her name and address).
Obviously the industry is incapable of regulating itself.
Re:50 percent, huh? (Score:2, Informative)
We get about 75% marketing calls now. As a result, we never answer the phone without checking caller ID.
Re:Are there exceptions? (Score:3, Informative)
Two things (Score:2, Informative)
We may not be out of the woods yet. The following link implies that the senate may be cutting off funding for the FTC's implementation (I.E. we'll pass it, make ourselves look like heroes, but not pay for it, thus effectively killing it).
Or at least that's my take on it, it's a bit hard to tell what's going on.
Article [adage.com]
VS
Yes, there is a system to opt-out in Canada (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.the-cma.org/consumer/donotcall/dnc_f
Re:"one good law"? (Score:5, Informative)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Supreme Court as LONG held that commercial speech is NOT free speech. Your right to advertise does not supersede my right to be left alone and not be bothered by such advertisements.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Your right of free speech stops at my mailbox. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (a bill by Hollings as well) has been enforced for over a decade. It has long held that junk faxes and prerecorded calls, among other practices are illegal. Every SINGLE case concerning the first amendments have been upheld by the federal courts. You are completely ignoring the fact that political, religious, and other such speech are exempted. As a result, you may fax anyone your ideas on political change or confirmation of christ and not run afoul of the law as long as there is no commercial purpose (you aren't selling Jesus dolls)Are you going to suggest that there is such a gross amount of negligence that all these federal judges in multiple federal districts are getting it wrong? Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997).
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Powers are still retained by the states. In fact some states have more strict laws. The TCPA was enabled to protect the consumer since states cannot easily do something that occurs outside it borders. Spam and telemarketing calls are going off shore, however the reason the TCPA and this bill still have teeth is that you can go after those on whose behalf the call is made. so unless the call and merchandise/serivce are BOTH offshore, you have a way to collect damages.
Re:Side effect for statistical surveys? (Score:2, Informative)
The bill cites the "Telemarketing Sales Rule [ftc.gov]" from which I obtained the following definitions:
It doesn't look like someone conducting a survery falls under the definition of "telemarketer" because they aren't solicitng a purchase.
I'm a teacher, though, and NAL.
Ravi
Verizon's Call Intercept (Score:3, Informative)
No caller ID? You MUST record your name to get through. It has virtually stopped all telemarketers dead in their tracks.
Totally rocks!
(and no, I don't work for Verizon although I did work for NYNEX eons ago though...)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
This totally works.
I actually wrote a letter to get on the Direct Marketing Association do-not-call list that exists right now. After about 2 months the number of calls was like a 1/4 of what they were. After that, I picked up every call and told them to put me on their do not call list. Oddly, almost every telemarketer that I said this to would politely say "OK, you can expect calls to cease within 3 weeks" or something like that.
I get about 1 call every couple of months now from a telemarketer, and it's usually from like the local paper or something. It's a huge relief.
Direct Marketing Association
1-888-777-3406
DMA Telephone Preference Service
P.O. Box 1559
Carmel, NY 10512
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Informative)
Private Caller ID blocking (via SBC (Pacbell)) (Score:3, Informative)
This blocking feature has reduced my telemarketer calls by 99%+. Since most telemarketer cold calling is done by a automated system, the unwanted calls never get through to me.
Re:"one good law"? (Score:3, Informative)
The first amendment is not violated on at least three counts:
1) Telemarketers are infringing upon my property rights by using my phone (which I own) in a manner not authorized by myself. This is by far the weakest of the three arguments, but it's still true. By being on the list, I am merely telling telemarketers that they may not use my property.
2) Their message is one purely of commerce, without any other value. Speech which is purely of commercial value is not protected speech.
3) Even if their speeches had socially redeeming value, there are many other protected avenues which can be utilized (such as snail mail, park gatherings, etc) to spread the same message. This is entirely irrelevant in this case, though, because purely commercial speech is not protected speech.
The 9th amemdment is not relevant in light of the first amendment not being violated.
The tenth amendment is not violated because this is the federal government regulating commerce. This is explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.
I agree with the others who have commented on this being one of the best laws (if not the only good law) passed by Congress in recent years.
Re:"Take me off your list" (Score:3, Informative)
If the poor shmoe making the call gives me a hard time about taking my number off their list, I immediately switch to "may I please speak to your manager" and that usually gets them to either cooperate or, if they actually put the manager on the line, that person cooperates. Every now and then they've hung up on me for asking questions like this (they get paid by the number of calls made, so wasting time with an uppity customer that wants off the list is doubleplus ungood), but the company always seems to call back a day or two later and the second caller always seems to be more reasonable than the first one.
When asking to be taken off the list, they invariably say that getting off the list "may take four to six weeks", which seems like total bullshit to me -- as others have noted, they legally have 30 days and I'm sure that is the constraint they go by, not any technical or procedural reason they can't get you off the list sooner. But whatever, I can deal with that -- like I say, I consistently do this with telemarketers, and it does consistently help.
But it hasn't eliminated the problem. Not by a long shot. I dropped down from multiple calls per day to less than one a week (and almost none during the evening, which is nice) but they still keep coming through.
It's like email spam. I think at this point "best practices" suggest that you should filter incoming mail with something like SpamAssassin, and you should report obvious UCE spam to Spamcop.net, and doing these does make the problem less annoying. But it doesn't, and never will, eliminate it. Legislation will help, but it won't eliminate it either -- people can just go offshore, or find loopholes, or whatever. But it'll help.
In the end though, the only way to really stop it is to disrupt the economics enough to make telemarketing & spam untenable. If you & your neighbors can all waste their time on the phone then they won't be able to make as many calls per hour, and if they can't make as many calls per hour then they have to work harder to make a profit, and if we can make them have to work hard enough then it won't be worthwhile to engage in telemarketing. If you & your neighbors can all waste the spammers time by filtering out the bulk (forcing them to test their spam against all the major filters to make sure things work, driving up their costs in the process) and if you can make sure that most of it is never seen and if you can get their ISP to give them a hard time, then it won't be worthwhile to engage in spamming.
Filters & do not call lists & legislation won't by themselves end the telemarketing & spam problems, but cumulatively they can work to bring it under control, make it unprofitable, and hopefully convince these people to find some other way to make a living. Like selling popup ads... :)
Buy an answering machine (Score:2, Informative)
Every few days we clean out the "blank" messages on the machine.
Cell phones help ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Too bad (Score:1, Informative)
Well, actuall.. was "Too bad" (Score:2, Informative)
You can simulate this effect yourself for free by recording the tone ahead of your regular phone message. Google for sit.wav and you'll find a few live links that will let you d/l the tone. (SIT means status information tone, or some-such).
--AceyMan
No-call (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Too bad (Score:2, Informative)
It doesn't do that on the version I own. That emits what sounds to the human ear as a single beep, which is apparently the three DTMF tones with very short duration.
The potential for false advertising is that this "tells" the dialer on the other end to remove the number. All it does is pretend to be a dead line, and a sane autodialer would remove such numbers from their queue.
The Telezapper worked great for us, but only for large, nationwide telemarketers. Small local shops that probably use a cheaper per-telemarketer autodialer (instead of a pooled dialer) zoom right past the tone.
Re:Too bad (Score:2, Informative)
I'm pretty sure that doesn't cut the legal mustard (at least in the U.S.). If my skim of the JunkBusters [junkbusters.com] site picked up the right info, once you tell them to put you on their do-not-call list they can't call you again for ten years or you can quite easily file some legal papers and get $500 per infringement out of the bastards.
From 64 CFR 64.1200 [fcc.gov]:
Dont pay $5 to the DMA (Score:2, Informative)
Instead, write to the following address (which i have memorized, having to read it to people every day at work)
Mail Preference Service
Direct Marketing Association
PO Box 9008
Farmingdale, NY 11735-9008
just provide them with the names, addresses, and phone numbers you want on their DNC lists. All for the cost of a stamp.
More on Special Information Tones (Score:3, Informative)
Vacant Circuit: 985.1Hz for 380ms, 1370.6Hz for 274ms, and 1776.7Hz for 380ms
I heard that the Telezapper just sends the first tone, which is enough for the autodialers to recognize it as some sort of telco announcement. You must answer the phone fairly quickly though, because some dialers assume that the tone will come within a couple seconds after dialing is complete. If you take too long, it may already be connected to the call handler that's going to make the sales pitch.
Who voted no? (Score:2, Informative)
Bishop (UT)
Ryan (OH)
Terry
Flake
Strickland
Paul
Tancredo
They're one of the 7 who voted no on the bill. Better give them a piece of your mind.
source:0 03&rollnumber=26 [house.gov]
http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2
Re:Zoobooks and their ilk (Score:3, Informative)
Screen your own calls w/out legislation (Score:2, Informative)