Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

U.S. National Do-Not-Call Registry is Law 540

extra88 writes "Bush has signed the Do-Not-Call Registry into law. The registry will be run by the FTC and funded by fees collected from telemarketers. Telemarketers can be fined up to $11K for calling someone on the list. Politicians, surveys (loophole?) and charities are exempt from using the list. The FCC oversees certain industries (airlines, banks and phone companies) and will have to "buy in" to the registry for it to affect those industries. Slashdot covered this story when the bill went through House of Representatives."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. National Do-Not-Call Registry is Law

Comments Filter:
  • sign up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clones ( 19801 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:26PM (#5487590) Homepage
    Where do I sign up?
    • Re:sign up (Score:5, Funny)

      by Hamster Of Death ( 413544 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:39PM (#5487756)
      Don't worry, they'll call you and ask if you want to sign up!
    • Re:sign up (Score:5, Informative)

      by InsaneGeek ( 175763 ) <slashdot@insanegeek s . com> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:41PM (#5487776) Homepage
      According to the ftc's website http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/ju mp.html

      It'll be phased in over 8 weeks region by region starting in July. You can register either by a toll-free call, or online (Yea!).
    • Not so fast (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      Here in Colorado, we implemented this about a year ago. It has helped. I no longer get calls saying to buy things. Instead, I get numerous calls from the republican and democratic party asking me to support their platform and send lots of money . They also tell me that the Libertarian party is a group of thugs who will allow the other party to get ahead (can't stand either as there is no difference).
      Likewise, I get 2-5 calls a day from charity groups saying that we will be in your area looking for used articles. If I do not answer within 3 rings, they will hang up and try again in about 15 minutes.
      Take your pick of which set of spam you want; businesses or charity/government.
  • any chance (Score:4, Funny)

    by Squareball ( 523165 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:26PM (#5487593)
    Any chance that to inform the masses about this they will do a mass calling at 6:30pm (dinner time) ? ;)
  • by JustAnOtherCodeSerf ( 181281 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:27PM (#5487599)
    We'd like you to take a survey...
    1) What do you think about our new offer we're sending to people?
    2) Would our recent pricing changes convince you to switch to our company?
    3) PROFIT!
    • Re:Hello Mr Jones (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Computer! ( 412422 )
      I have actually received a telemarketing call that went much like this. Not bragging, just reminding everyone that many sales calls may be worded as surveys in the future.

  • Surveys... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:27PM (#5487600) Homepage Journal
    Surveys are indeed a loophole here. Since Indiana's do-not-call list went into effect (which is a MAJOR success), I have gotten some thinly veiled "research survey" calls, which offer a free sample of a product as the compensation for participating. They're pretty few and far between, though.

    I still can't believe that a legislature actually passed a reasonably effective and useful law, despite the opposition of lobbying groups!
    • by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:42PM (#5487779) Journal
      Porn is protected because politicians watch porn. My guess is that many of these politicians were getting calls from telemarketers at home... You figure it out.
    • Another experience. Since my state (Kansas) enacted theirs my calls have gone down enormously. "Surveys" however still slip through. They pitch a small 3 question survey about something meaningless, and then the next day I'm miraculously a "winner" of some cheap crap for having participated. Only catch is that they want to deliver it in person and sit down for a chat about some exciting travel opportunities in the comfort of my own home. Rediculous.
    • Re:Surveys... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cacav ( 567890 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:58PM (#5487984)
      I'm more concerned with the charity loophole. The group "Lighthouse Credit Foundation" was busted by NY last year for calling people with automated messages (I average 3 calls a month from them myself) and no way to get off their lists. They claim they're exempt because they're a so-called charity offering debt relief.

      I'm worried more companies will find a way to try and look like a charitable organization. Or worse yet, pay a charity to do their solicitations for them as a middle-man.
  • by Anixamander ( 448308 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:27PM (#5487601) Journal
    My first thought was that this list could cut down my telemarketing calls received by about 90%. But what is that you say? It may not apply to phone companies? Well, I suppose cutting my telemarketing calls received by 5% is still some sort of progress.
    • by The_K4 ( 627653 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:37PM (#5487720)
      It's easy, I just use my cell phone for EVERYTHING. I never answer the home line. If I get a telemarketer (phone company, political or other wise) I explain that this is a cell phone, and I pay by the min for incomming and out going calls and as such is it illegal for them to call this number. I also ask for the company name, address and the referance number of this call that I may send them a bill for the charges of this call, which they are now legaly responsible. I only had to do that 3 times, and even with out actually sending them a bill, the calls stopped. :)
  • Thank goodness.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirFozzie ( 442268 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:27PM (#5487604)
    Now if We can just get a "Do Not Spam" List to go with the "Do Not Call" list.

    First Post?
    • Maybe Bush is actually a hardcore anti-spammer? Creating a national Do Not Call list is step one. But now, moving on to email spam... how to do it? Most of it comes from overseas. Maybe the reason Bush is trying to run the world is so that the anti-spam list would be able to be enforced?
  • Woo (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:28PM (#5487616) Homepage Journal

    * ring ring *
    Hello?
    Hallo, dees iz Al Quaeda fund raising group, please geef uz moe-nee.
    I'm on the National Do Not Call list!
    Ah.. forgiff my mistake, American Infidel. I shall call next perzon on list. Haff a nice day.
    No problem, g'day.
  • Do-Not-Email Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:28PM (#5487620) Homepage Journal
    All good, for now, but how long before this is extended to a national Do-Not-Email list? Assuming this passes the Supremes, regarding the 'first amendment - free speech' test, it seems only logical.

    I would personally like such a thing considering my volume of spam, but aside from anyone who lives by spamming, does anyone find issues with the extended concept?

    • by Jason Cain ( 17031 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:34PM (#5487692)
      How would you enforce it? I assume that most of my unsolicited telephone calls come from within the US, and are therefore subject to US laws.
      The callers could move outside the US, but the cost of making the phone calls would increase dramatically.

      However, it's easy for spammers to move outside the US to avoid an unfavorable law, and doesn't really change their costs much.
      • You start by enforcong it at the retail level - someone in the USofA has to be taking orders for, shipping, and profiting! (step 3?) from those pills that make my unit bigger. Those are the ones you nail - if they stop hiring the spam companies to 'promote' them, then the volume might drop significantly.

        Of course this would not work for spam advertising an offshore website or service, but hey - it's a start...
    • All good, for now, but how long before this is extended to a national Do-Not-Email list?
      Since 99% of unsolicited spam comes from somewhere outside the country, this list would mean precisely nothing.
      • My iptables blackhole list is about twenty lines long and has reduced my spam to less than one a week. Its amazing that all the spam comes from the same networks (whois -h whois.arin.net [ipnumber]) A few /7, /8, several /16, and the rest /24...
    • How will I ever convince them that *@mydomain.net is a valid e-mail address!
  • by JPelorat ( 5320 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:28PM (#5487624)
    "Hi, this is AnnoyingCo, we want you to pad, for absolutely no compensation, our database that we'll be selling to someone else so they can annoy you too."

    "My answer to all your questions will be 'Go fuck yourself raw, bitch'. Still want to ask? Have at it."
  • The UK has one too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Macka ( 9388 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:29PM (#5487627)

    I just signed up to the UK version, www.tpsonline.org.uk. It takes a month to work its way into the system, then I'm promised a big reduction in unsolicited phone calls, currently running at around 2-3 a day. As I have to work from home some weeks, so this will be a great relief. I'm glad you guys have it too.

    Macka

  • by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:29PM (#5487628) Homepage Journal
    Phase 1:All telemarketers stop for n months.

    Phase 2: No fines = no funds to enforce law.

    Phase 3: Resume telemarketing

    Phase 4: Profit!
  • by bkrrrrr ( 552481 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:29PM (#5487631)
    Why are surveys and charities exempt? They're no less annoying, and have no right to call you out of the blue either.

    bkr

    • Don't forget about the political calls. While I applaud the first half of the effort to eliminate these calls, I wish that politicians had the nuts to go the whole way and remove themselves and charities as exceptions.
    • Ever heard of political polling (aka surveys). With out these candidates would have no idea what (lies) to tell voters. This is call "covering their own asses".
    • Because the bill is designed to make Americans think that the Congress is doing something in their interest. Judging by the posts here (so far), it looks like it's been a great success.

      Of course, the bill will not actually do anything.
    • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:05PM (#5488074) Homepage
      As a sociologist, I really do need to call "random" people, and can't consider a survey consisting only of telephone owning people who are willing to take a survey and who are clueless as to the do-not-call registry a valid sample space... There would be no real way to judge many of the statistics taken for granted these days without the ability to call and survey just about anyone. I would hate to think that all of /. would be excluded form any future informational research (according to the latest figures, 0.1% of the US population works in computing, and all of them at Microsoft).

      They don't necessarily have the right to call you out of the blue, but if the information is to be statistically valid that's exactly what they have to do. And it is in the public's interests to have accurate statistics (not that there aren't a lot of rigged polls going on).

      As for charities? I'm betting they originally wanted to exclude all "nonprofits," but realized that the ACLU and many other political groups are non-profit but not charities. Hence, gain the support of your friendly local Goodwill and keep your iron grip on politics.
      • by Bobo_The_Boinger ( 306158 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:30PM (#5488355)
        Come on, that is a foolish argument. If you are calling people and asking them "are you willing and able to take the time to take a survey right now?" You are already removing any randomness from your data. First you are only getting those people who OWN phones. You are also only going to get those people who have nothing better to do than talk to you at the instant that you call. As such you will talk to many more jobless people than those who work long hours, many more single people than those watching active small children, etc.

        Sorry, but if you want truly random data, you'll have to work a lot harder than picking up the nearest phone book to get it.

        As for whether the public needs more statistics, I don't think so. According to my calculations, I have actually listened to and understood 0.7% of statistics that are spewed at me daily from the television. Of those 0.01% have proven useful to me in my life. :)
  • Hope it works (Score:2, Informative)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 )
    Indiana enacted a similar law and the number of telemarketing calls I get has dropped signifigantly. However, now I seem to be getting calls from people I have ordered things from doing "follow-up" calls which only end up trying to sell me more stuff. Still maybe one of those every two weeks as opposed to several a week.

  • So... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dex22 ( 239643 ) <plasticuser@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:31PM (#5487650) Homepage
    When will we get our Do Not Spam registry, administered by the US Army? ;)
  • Overseas calls? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tinrobot ( 314936 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:31PM (#5487652)
    So, if someone calls from within the US, you can haul them to court where there's an $11K fine... but what if the call originates in... say... Tijuana? Ottowa? Bombay?

    I get the feeling that, in order to survive, junk phone callers will resort to some dirty tricks.
    • Re:Overseas calls? (Score:2, Informative)

      by jxs2151 ( 554138 )
      but what if the call originates in... say... Tijuana? Ottowa? Bombay?

      If some company is stupid enough to make an international telemarketing call, have at it. That business model will soon drive them bankrupt.

      One of the reasons that we currently get telemarketing calls is the pricing structure of local and toll calls is low enough to support that model. This crap didn't happen back when a phone call actuall cost something.

    • Re:Overseas calls? (Score:5, Informative)

      by daker13 ( 62596 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:29PM (#5488338)
      From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt .htm

      7. What about telemarketers calling from overseas? Are they covered? Won't you have difficulty enforcing your national "do not call" registry outside the U.S?
      Telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from. Enforcement outside the U.S. is not as easy as it is at home, but it is not unusual for the FTC to take law enforcement action - and to prevail - against telemarketers calling from outside the U.S. Moreover, if a company within the U.S. solicits sales through an overseas professional telemarketer, that U.S. company is liable for any TSR violations of the telemarketer. Initiating enforcement action against such companies is not a problem for the FTC.
  • but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jcw2112 ( 147992 )
    ...where are all of the loopholes that you just know are in there. maybe i'm a bit cynical by nature, but there has to be at least one big enough to drive a truck through. i know about the survey thing and the non-profit, but where's the real built-in escape for that $11k fine?
    • In the part that says all registered "Do-Not-Call" parties agree that all household members will vote for the GOP canidate in each election they participate in. :)
  • by use_compress ( 627082 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:32PM (#5487660) Journal
    Hello Sir/Madam, while on your way to vote for Diamond Joe Quimby and donate to Guns for Tots, pick up some of our effective, 100% legal herbal Viagra substitute.
  • by mr.nicholas ( 219881 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:32PM (#5487664)
    You know, I've heard a lot of anger coming from the Telemarketing industry regarding this. The general consensus is that it will drive them completely out of business.

    You know what? It's all their faults anyway. If they hadn't been so aggresive and so intrusive (I used to get around 15 calls from 6pm to 9pm ... right smack dab in the middle of dinner), they wouldn't have pissed off an entire nation of people and legislation like this wouldn't be required.

    But they were, so it is needed.

    Hm. I guess that thought applies to SPAM as well.

    My comment to telemarketers: Here's a dime, go call someone who gives a damn (but make sure you check The Registry first!). As my mother used to say: you made the bed, now f**king sleep in it.

    • A lot of anger coming from the Telemarketing industry.

      This would infer that you "know" people in the telemarketing industry. Which would infer that you also might know some "higer-ups" in the telemarketing industry.

      I understand their pain, how about we call a secret meeting to have this act overturned.Tell all the telemarketers ... Tonight, midnight, behind the quickie mart, come unarmed with a whole lot of cash. They'll be a guy there named Bruiser, he really is going to miss all those calls at 8:00 AM and 7:00 PM, and he really knows about the pain and anguish that these things can cause and Bruiser will not stand for people to laugh during the process.

      I'm totally against the old Eye for an Eye law, time to implement new laws, Two Eyes for an Eye, bend over and take it.

      From my favorite movie Boilerroom -- "now I've got to actually get a job"

    • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:52PM (#5487920) Homepage
      Pickpocketers, sheisters, and muggers were pretty upset when those industries were outlawed. But quite frankly if your business model is predicated upon annoying people, expect to get banned. Automated call machines were banned for exactly the same reason. Now that call-centers have become consolidated and automated enough to be a major nusiance, they rightfully should be too.

      I'm glad the telemarketing industry is angry. Hopefully that means we will be rid of those leeches upon society.

      Do something positive, and get back to us.

  • by product byproduct ( 628318 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:33PM (#5487665)
    #include <stdio.h>

    int main()
    {
    int i, j, k;

    for (i = 100; i <= 999; i++)
    for (j = 100; i <= 999; j++)
    for (k = 0; k <= 9999; k++)
    printf("(%03d) %03d-%04d\n", i, j, k);
    }
    • Don't forget to filter out their own numbers. After all, we want them to consciously opt themselves out...especially since that is what we are expected to do.

    • come on, at least put 9-1-1 on the list of filtered calls...;)
    • by davinciII ( 469750 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:54PM (#5487948)
      for (i = 100; i = 999; i++)
      for (j = 100; i = 999; j++)--
      for (k = 0; k = 9999; k++)
      printf("(%03d) %03d-%04d\n", i, j, k);

      You've got yourself an endless loop. The second for statement will execute indefinitely, as i will always be 100 throughout the iteration.

      Ahh, the beauty of open source ;)

    • by rworne ( 538610 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:38PM (#5488439) Homepage
      In order to post code for a code review, we must first:

      1) Have a Premilinary Design Review
      2) Have a Critical Design Review
      3) Submit your code package to CVS
      4) Call for a review meeting at least 5 business days in advance
      5) Submit a package for review at the time of the meeting notice complete with Engineering Notes, Class Diagrams, Structure Diagrams, and Sequence Diagrams.

      Thank you.
    • Just for fun I compiled "product byproduct's" source and ran it for a few minutes saving the output to a text file, which is 700M and never actually gets passed the 100 area code because after

      (100) 999-9999 the next number generated is
      (100) 1000-0000

      if you look at the second for loop in his code, you'll see that it checks the area code instead of the prefix

      This will get you the desired results

      #include <stdio.h>

      int main()
      {
      int i, j, k;

      //i and j start at 200 because there is no
      //area code or prefix that start with 1 or 0

      for (i = 200; i <= 999; i++)
      for (j = 200; j <= 999; j++)
      for (k = 0; k <= 9999; k++)
      printf("(%03d) %03d-%04d\n", i, j, k);
      }

    • The fact that you were able to put together this software package so swiftly leads me to conclude that you received assistance from IBM. This assistance infringes on my patent for a "device to increment accumulator by value unit value". My lawyers have filed papers suing IBM for

      ....doctor evil pause....


      one million dollars!

  • by Botchka ( 589180 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:33PM (#5487673)
    How the hell would I prove that a telemarketer called me? Is it my word against their word? Do I obtain phone records? Does the government obtain phone records? Now granted, my cell phone does a pretty good job of breaking calls down to incoming and outgoing, but I don't recall if it tells you the phone number of the incoming call on the bill Seems like yet another political feel good move that the government has no way of enforcing. Hey if it works and the iron the kinks out, then sign me up! Hell lets figure out how to do the same thing as spammers, since I think that cause more pain and cost more money.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by edp ( 171151 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:49PM (#5487872) Homepage
      "How the hell would I prove that a telemarketer called me?"

      First, your testimony is evidence, and that is probably sufficient for most cases. It is ancient technology, examining people as they tell their stories, but it works in most cases.

      Second, you can take a photograph of your calling-line display.

      Third, if they leave a message on your answering machine, you can take a recording to court.

      Fourth, you can keep a log of unwanted calls you receive. This is better than your testimony alone, because it shows you are being careful and are making accurate records.

      Fifth, many telemarketing suits involve multiple calls. You can give the judge a list of people you spoke to, on what dates, what you told them, and so on. The combined facts make it very unlikely that the defendant did not call you as you claim, and you only need a preponderance of the evidence to prevail.

      Sixth, you can ask your friends and neighbors if they received similar calls. Any telemarketer violating the do-not-call list is calling everyone, so you will find other witnesses to verify your report.

      Seventh, if it gets to that point is important enough, you can subpoena their records and so on. But then you are into real discovery and may not be able to use small claims court.

    • I don't know what standards of proof apply, but whatever they are, they appear to be a suitable deterrent -- at least in Colorado.

      The Colorado version of this law has been VERY effective. I've gone from receiving several calls per day, to one or two per month.

      I've never tried to actually prosecute one of the few remaining telemarketers, though. I just tell them never to call again, and I hang up.
    • I think they should tie the phone company into this law. I think it would be pretty simple but I'll admit that I'm not fully versed on the intricaceis (sp?) of the phone system.

      What I think should happen is that the phone company has a database that contains the do-not-call list. They also have a database that has known call centers (should be simple... any place that has a crap load of outgoing phone calls everyday would be on this list). Then every call that is made from any of these places checks the list. If the number being called is on the list, the call is not put through and the call is logged. At the end of the month, a report is generated and sent to whoever collects the penalty fees. This saves us from getting calls even though we are on the list, and keeps the enforcement simple and cheap.

    • All phone calls are logged to every number, always, caller-id or not; you can't necessarily get that info just by asking though. In my state, the Oregon Attorney General's office goes after the violator FOR you. I'm pretty sure they won't have any trouble getting records from the phone company if you tell him the date and time of the call. What is the telemarketer going to say to the evidence that they called you? "I was trying to call my Grandmother and dialed the wrong number." And the fine is $25-grand here. Or at least it was. I expect that the Fedral list will get rid of the state lists, though I have not read the law.
  • by greenskyx ( 609089 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:34PM (#5487682)
    I'm running for congress... would you be interested in switching to AT&T?????????
  • Soooooo.... How do I sign up, and when?
  • Who use this phone devices today? I almost never received calls from telemarketers. But my yahoo acounts are flooded by spam. I leave my yahoo addresses in all suspecius forms. In fact - in all forms. Of course I keep my home email addresses as private as possible. And many people do the same. It is not convinient. And it's not what we, email users, expected originally from the email system. So what about email antispam laws? Many people and especially corporations would be happy to register their email accounts in the "do-not-call" list, and they are ready to pay for it to protect their privacy.
  • by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:37PM (#5487718) Homepage
    Recently, telemarketing calls I've been getting go like this:
    Hello, this is [different voice] BARBARA [/different voice], and I'd like to talk to you about the exciting benefits of something-or-other. Press ONE if you'd like more details.
    Now, I'm already on the state's do-not-call list, but how do I tell these people they've broken the law? If I press ONE, I'm saying I want more details. If I do nothing, their machine hangs up.

    My current solution is to use an auto-attendant wherein a caller needs to press my extension number to ring me. Now, their machine talks to my machine, and I never even hear a phone ring.

    But I'd still like to cause them some pain.
  • Yesterday I got a call on my cell phone from my credit card company, hawking a balance transfer. I'm tempted to send them a bill for the air time.

    Oddly enough, it was from my Linux Fund credit card.
  • Any good reasons why politicians are exempt? I don't want unsolicited calls from anybody. Period.
  • by djrogers ( 153854 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:46PM (#5487837)
    can be found here http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/in dex.html [ftc.gov].

    [/end whore]
  • by jonasson ( 224996 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:46PM (#5487841)
    "Telemarketers say the registry will devastate their business."
    This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If anything, a do not call list would help them reduce the costs by eliminating unnecessary phone calls. The people who sign up for this list are those who are least likely to purchase anything through a telemarketer. Now that they have a list of numbers not likely to buy anything, they can skip over that and save the cost of a phone call.
  • I suppose that there are some companies out there who will attempt to circumvent the law that way, but this allows "reputable" survey companies to conduct business fairly normally. We don't do telemarketing - you couldn't pay us or our competitors enough to do that. See, if you're a member of CASRO [casro.org] you'll actually lose your membership if you attempt to "SUG" (Sell Under the Guise of research), and that's a pretty big deal. You'd lose lots of clients if they found out you lost your CASRO membership - they enforce standards in the industry.

    I guess the red flag that should go up is, if you're on the list, and someone tries to sell you something, it's a bad thing. If the caller identifies themselves as a research company and only asks questions about your purchasing habits, experiences with a product, they're probably ok. We generally identify ourselves as a national/worldwide research firm in the first couple of sentences of the call.
  • More on surveys etc. (Score:5, Informative)

    by linuxwrangler ( 582055 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:51PM (#5487904)
    I do work for a company that does market-research. Read the law - there are reasonably strict restrictions on what counts as charities, surveys, etc. I may be in the minority but I have done focus groups and do reply to some surveys if I'm not otherwise occupied (well, I used to - working for a research company disqualifies me for most of the now). I hardly think that sending a FREE product, gift certificate, etc. as a thank-you makes a survey somehow evil. (I should note, we hardly do any call-out work and on the rare occasions we do we adhere strictly to the allowed hours and other restrictions.)

    Now, you want to see a loophole - how about the exemption for anyone with whom you have a "business relationship". Bought a widget from me in the last 18 months - I'm exempt. I called you for product info in the last three months - you can feel free to start calling me whether I'm listed or not. Fortunately even in those cases (and I think with charities as well) you can tell that specific business/charity to stop calling and they must honor it.

    Better still, they must start transmitting caller ID info - no more "ID unavailable" and must have a person on the line within 2 seconds of your answer (the telemarketers hate this since they can't cram in as many calls per person per hour with their predictive dialers).

    The other giant loophole is that there are a variety of exemptions for financial institutions, airlines and telecom companies but it appears from the FTC web site that this could be just procedural in that they are already regulated by other agencies and it just needs some interagency coordination to bring those into the fold as well. Still, those exemptions bear watching. Perhaps someone more familiar than I am with the laws would care to comment.
  • Surveys (Score:5, Informative)

    by _iris ( 92554 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:52PM (#5487915) Homepage
    The provisions for surveys are meant to prevent the government from fighting itself. The government, at various levels, spends billions of dollars per year funding survey research. My employer (the University of Wisconsin) recieves millions each year from the state alone.

    If you feel a survey is not of academic nature then the call is illegitimate (per Wisconsin law) and the caller can still be punished. Since Wisconsin's do-not-call list went into effect at the beginning of this year we have recieved phone calls from various areas of the government ensuring our credibility.
  • by jazman_777 ( 44742 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:53PM (#5487921) Homepage
    A "Do Not /." List for websites.
  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @05:56PM (#5487965)
    I've made the mistake of donating to some charities, and now I get hammered with the charity telemarketers. They're just as bad as the credit card and long distance people.

    It's sad that charities have been reduced to this.
  • by kalislashdot ( 229144 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:11PM (#5488140) Homepage
    For all those asking when and were to sign up let me make it simple. It says Summer. It is administrated by the FTC.

    So that means in July go to either firstgov.gov or ftc.gov and search for "do not call". Simple huh? Well stop whining... "when, where, oh boo hoo".
  • by Ktistec Machine ( 159201 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:25PM (#5488297)
    The problem is, once everyone has signed up, the list becomes a huge source of valid phone numbers for the unscrupulous telemarketer who's willing to risk the law (or who's based overseas where the law doesn't apply).

    And I'm sure there are other ways such an enormous compendium of phone numbers could be abused.

    Not that I'm saying this law is a bad thing. I'm thrilled about it. But I'm just listening for the other shoe to fall.

  • by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:33PM (#5488383) Homepage
    Hook up ELIZA [www-ai.ijs.si] with her own voice [databasesystemscorp.com] and let the telemarketer spin their wheels for half an hour or so:

    Telemarketer: Would you like to learn how to save on your long distance bills?

    Eliza: Oh, i like to learn what to save on my long distance bills.

    Telemarketer : Well, with our super saver program you can make long distance calls for just 39 cents a minute!

    Eliza: Oh, i can make long distance calls for just 39 cents a minute.

    Telemarketer: Uh, yes. So can I sign you up?

    Eliza: You are sure?

    Telemarketer: Um, yeah. Are you interested in signing up for our long distance service?

    Eliza: Would you prefer if I were not interested in signing up for our long distance service?

    • by boskone ( 234014 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @09:21PM (#5489922)
      well, it is funny, but in reality, you have to watch what you say on the phone. If she ever says something that can be interpreted as a yes, then boom, you've just bought whatever they're selling. Even when you are on the phone, be very careful about how you phrase your responses, there are some very, very unscrupulous telesales people out there. (Yes, I am a salesperson. No, I don't call people and bug them.)
  • in the UK (Score:3, Informative)

    by samhalliday ( 653858 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:34PM (#5488399) Homepage Journal
    we have had this kind of system for a loooong time

    UK's TPS [tpsonline.org.uk]

    It actually works very well, and companies DO get into trouble if they violate the policy. It has not hindered tele-marketing at all, except that it has put an end to a lot of silly 'double glazing companies' from misusing the system by making them buy the list (which is quite expensive and must be upgraded frequently).

    I am on the list, but most people do not know it exists. I have not recieved any crappy calls since signing on, but still recieve texts as they dont come under the same laws (a recent slashdot story

    SMS Story [slashdot.org]

    hints that texts may soon be part of this law, however, which is great!). There is also a snail-mail equivalent. Nice to see the self proclaimed 'free world' catching up with the other side of the pond!

  • by Lodragandraoidh ( 639696 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:34PM (#5488403) Journal
    This is probably just a means for the government to collect a list of 'dissidents'.

    According to government statistics, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership, people who believe in 'real' freedom (not the PC fakey kind), and anti-telemarking activists.

    You have been warned...
    [ The Management ]
  • by Tokerat ( 150341 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:51PM (#5488590) Journal

    Telemarketers say the registry will devastate their business.
    Gee, if everyone wants to be on this do-not-call list, don't you think your business model kind of sucked in the first place? Get a real job, losers! All I have to say is good ridance.
  • by pauljlucas ( 529435 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @06:55PM (#5488631) Homepage Journal
    In addition to establishing the national do-not-call registry, the amended TSR [has other] changes including ... requiring telemarketers to transmit Caller ID information.
    I currently have the Privacy Manager service from Pacific Bell (SBC). Callers whose Caller-ID information is not received are given a recording telling them the called number does not accept calls without Caller-ID and gives them the option to record their name at which point the callee is called by the system and the caller's name is announced giving the callee the option to accept the call.

    Anyway, since telemarketers currently do not transmit Caller-ID information, I get no telemarketing calls. None. Zip. Nada.

    Once telemarketers start transmitting Caller-ID information, Privacy Manager will be much less useful. But, if the national do-not-call list actually works, it will make up for it. Let's hope.

    • I don't see why I should pay the phone company to avoid calls that occur only because the telemarketers paid the phone company for my phone number. It's a racket.

      I just don't answer the phone. Anybody who I actually want to hear from knows how to get ahold of me.
  • by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @07:10PM (#5488787) Homepage
    Just read the ftc.gov FAQ about the new law, and I'm delighted!
    Greatly reduce abandoned calls. Telemarketers will be required to connect the call to a sales representative within two seconds of the consumer's greeting. This will reduce the number of "dead air" or hang-up calls you receive from telemarketers. These calls result from the use of automatic dialing equipment that sometimes reaches more numbers than there are available sales representatives. In addition, when the telemarketer doesn't have a representative standing by, a recorded message must play to let you know who's calling and the telephone number they're calling from. The law prohibits a sales pitch. And to give you time to answer the phone, the telemarketer may not hang up before 15 seconds or four rings.
    I have always felt that abusing predictive dialers (by under-staffing the call center and simply hanging up on some percentage of your victims) was against the spirit of the law. Now it's against the letter of the law.
  • loophole? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by spazoid12 ( 525450 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @07:55PM (#5489219)
    The FCC oversees certain industries (airlines, banks and phone companies) and will have to "buy in" to the registry for it to affect those industries.

    Wonder if there will be companies that do (insert random thing) business but think to get themselves excluded by paying $1000 to become a "phone company" (a reseller of long distance service). If the FCC doesn't buy into the FTC's list, then such a company might have a loop hole and be able to share the data in own "division" of the company to it's others (ie. it's actual original business).
  • by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Tuesday March 11, 2003 @08:48PM (#5489691) Homepage Journal
    If I get ONE MORE CALL about people asking me about George Wendt, eating beans, and movies, I'm gonna scream!

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...