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."

Re:Now

"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. "

I'd love that. I'd report my address as *@*.*

Re:Maybe, but

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.

Naah...

You mean that the "remove me" link in spams isn't sufficient?

Re:Now

I'm not sure I could support a legally enforced `do not spam' list. In fact, I have mixed feelings about the `do not telemarket' list, despite the fact that I hate telemarketers (AT&T has called me trying to sell long-distance service about five times in the past few days!).

The issue of the government controlling use of technology is what gives me reservations about making spam illegal. Electronic mail's vulnerability to spam is a flaw in the design of the system itself. We should not attempt to solve this problem by introducing regulations that ban certain uses of electronic mail. When you think about it, a federally enforced do not spam list would be a similar approach to that taken by the DMCA. The DMCA attempts to reduce copyright violations by outlawing the distribution or use of software that exploits flawed copy-protection schemes. A federally enforced do not spam list would attempt to reduce destructive uses of email by outlawing certain uses of the flawed electronic mail system.

What about alternatives? In general, we should look for a technological solution to this technological problem. The Bayesian spam filters that everyone has been talking about seem promising. Some system involving only accepting messages signed by trusted sources may also be possible. Of course, you can't list every source you would like to accept mail from, so a system like this may take some hard thought.

Anyway, we may not find a perfect solution to the spam problem immediately, but my point is that government regulation is A Bad Idea.

Re:Now

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.

Barrier to Entry

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.

But....

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:But....

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.

Re:Barrier to Entry

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 :/

Get Off The Mailing Lists Now!

Loosely related, but you can currently get off [dmaconsumers.org] Junk mail lists through a similar method.

It's Run by the DMA

Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

Re:It's Run by the DMA

Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

Indeed it is - however, having used the mail preference service since 1998, I can say without reservation that it works, and is a good thing. I still get some junk from local businesses who don't subscribe to the DMA's lists, but it's on the order of three or four pieces a month.

The service is worth every penny I spent to get on it. (I think it was $0.32 for the stamp back then)

Re:It's Run by the DMA

My arse it is, it's blackmail. They demand $5 for a faint suggestion that I might receive less junk mail if I fill in their stupid form.

The $5 is only to submit online. Just print the thing out and mail it in. Cost of a stamp today, $0.37.

As for the list being voluntary - it's observed by those who send more than 80% of the junk mail in the US. I know a little about the direct mail industry, having consulted for a mailing equipment manufacturer in the recent past.

Re:It's Run by the DMA

Amusing or not, it does work. I sent in my card several years ago, and I get essentially no junk mail anymore.

Also, after just a couple of months of methodically using the "do not call" line and being a bit of a prick about it, I do not get telemarketing calls anymore. NONE. It's been literally MONTHS since I've gotten a call. Once in a while a small local company will call and want to clean my furnace ducts or something, but that's like 2 or 3 times a year.

These methods do work but you must be stubborn.

Could this be used...

to set legal precedent for effective anti-spam regulations?

Suing would be an admission...

The DMA suing would basically be an admission that they use unethical tactics.
From from what I've read, this doesn't say that they can't call, only that can't call if the number they are calling is on the Do Not Call list (and also the Caller ID stuff, which is secondary).
Frankly, I don't see how this would in any way affect 'buying oppurtunities', as the list would be opt-in, and so anyone on that list DOESN'T want to hear from telemarketers; it's actually better for the marketers since they have a greater chance of reaching someone who might be their product.

I'm from Missouri. We've had a DON'T CALL list for

I'm from Missouri, we've had a do not call list for a couple of years. It has some exceptions in it, for instance charities, the local phone company, and businesses you've done business with before (banks abuse this provision a lot).

On the whole it works pretty good. The State Attorney General takes on a few abusers every year and almost completely recovers the cost of the service. In my opinion, it's one of the better government programs out there. I'm satisfied with the results.

Senile parents loophole?

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.

Finally!

Finally a list where you can post "ME TOO!!!" and it actually MATTERS!

Are these guys evil or what?

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

Good grief! Can you the ultimate evil company's board of directors?

CEO, EvilCo: Satan himself
VP of Intellectual Property, West Coast: Jack Valenti
VP of Intellectual Property, East Coast: Hilary Rosen
VP of Sales and Marketing: The Direct Marketing Association
CFO: David Skilling

VP of Getting Royally Screwed Every Time Shit Goes Down: The customer.

Potentional Loss of Buying Opportunities?

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

Sueing on what basis

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.

Misreading

I originally read that as "The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue U.S. consumers for the potential loss of buying opportunities." and was remarkably unshocked :)

Don't call me

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).

Is it just me or...

Is
"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities." the funniest sentence ever?

"But we wanted to offer them a once in a lifetime chance!!!!!"

Loopholes?

As with every other law, I'm sure the lobbyists will make sure that we'll still get our fair share of calls from "legitamized" companies.

From the FTC website [ftc.gov] (emphasis added):

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers a choice about whether they want to receive most telemarketing calls. Consumers soon will be able to put their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry.

We'll see exactly how it holds up...

It is *NOT* a Free Speech Issue

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.

Hey, let's help out!

What say we all get together and DoS DMA's infrastructure while this is in consideration? After all, if we were to keep calling them incessantly (and emailing, and whatever else we can do), it would certainly be an elegant form of vengeance, particularly if it impeded their ability to fight the FTC on this one. Don't forget to get the law firm that is "of counsel" to them in this matter :)

Telezapper...

On a related note:

I grabbed one of those Telezappers while I was waiting in line at Staples last week buying a UPC. Danged if the silly thing doesn't work.

It emits the three tones that the phone company plays when you dial an out of service phone number. Everyone hears it when I answer any call - but the cool part is listening to the auto-dialers automatically hangup when they "hear" it.

There ought to be some way to hack together a similar machine using an old voice modem and some sort Tone controller - kind of a hybrid box for getting long distance phone calls for free. (Anyone else remember those?)

Re:Telezapper...

Download the tone from http://heymoe.freeyellow.com/ [freeyellow.com] and record it on an old answering machine. Set the answering machine to pick up all calls on the first ring and volume to 'max' on the answering machine, so you can use it to screen your calls.

Total cost? $5 for a cheap-ass answering machine at Wal-mart.

DON'T LOSE OUT! 847sjsj

DON'T LOSE OUT!

The FTC is about to take away your ability to recieve great offers and buying opportunities through email.

Stop them before they stop you!

For a small donation of only $10, you can help fund the fight against unwanted government regulation in direct marketing.

Remember that only you can make a difference.

You have received this mail because you indicated that you wanted to receive promotional offers of this kind. If you no longer wish to receive mail like this, please click this link:

http://www.spamhaus.com/addressverifier.pl?adress= [e-mail] [c]

Thanks

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

Next: Stalker sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife the opportunity to be harassed mercilessly.

Translation...

The "charity" loophole will end up VERY abused...

"Hi, Fred here, from Fred's Aluminum Siding Non-Profit Shell Corporation and Charity. I'd like to talk to you about how 0.0001% of every purchase you make through us goes directly to feed starving, aluminum-siding-less children in South Africa..."

Why not? It works for companies that want to buy their own personal politician... Does anyone really suspect ANY sane politician (I didn't say "ethical", just "sane") would dare take a stand against a scheme that could turn around and attack their major source of campaign financing?