Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

Tauzin To Delay National "Do Not Call" List 58

Posted by timothy from the lovely-delay-tactics dept.
akb writes "The Washington Post is reporting that Billy Tauzin (R, LA), powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has told the FTC that he will block their request for funding for the national do-not-call list in order to review the plan. A spokesman said Tauzin does not oppose the creation of the do-not-call list but is concerned with giving the FTC carte-blanche and would like to clarify what the role of the FCC is in the matter. The FTC had hoped the do-not-call list would be implemented by the middle of this year, they said delay in the funding proposal would push implementation back at least 6 months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tauzin To Delay National "Do Not Call" List More

Tauzin To Delay National "Do Not Call" List

Comments Filter:

  • Gee, a republican goes against privacy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @04:06PM (#5042801)
    A spokesman said Tauzin does not oppose the creation of the do-not-call list but is concerned with giving the FTC carte-blanche and would like to clarify what the role of the FCC is in the matter

    Sure... don't believe everything a politician says.

    It's much more politically feasable to say "I just need to check on the FTC powers" then to say
    "My funders oppose the do-not-call list".

    • conspiracy fodder (Score:5, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @04:25PM (#5042935) Homepage Journal
      C'mon, now who [opensecrets.org] really profits from telemarketing? <cough>#2</cough>

      It's just a coincidence, people.


    • > It's much more politically feasable to say "I just need to check on the FTC powers" then to say "My funders oppose the do-not-call list".

      Voters' votes, donors' funds? ... Voters' votes, donors' funds?

      Politics is one hell of an optimization problem.

    • Carnivore and DMCA brought to you by Bill Clinton and Al Gore

      SSSCA/CBDTPA brought to you by Fritz Hollings

      Face it, when money talks in our dictatorship-I-mean-democratic republic, legislators tend to listen. There are only two things that can be done, let the states hold their Congresscritters accountable criminally and civilly so that even if the feds don't take action, the states are free to do so. Then reduce the size of the government so that the average corporation won't get anything from lobbying. The **AA would stop lobbying overnight if the courts took a hardline, strict constructionist interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

      You get the kind of government you vote for. Are you whiners really voting for the right party (LP)? Thought not.

  • Intro blurb kind of misleading (Score:4, Informative)

    by bmetzler ( 12546 ) <bmetzler@live . c om> on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @04:06PM (#5042805) Homepage Journal
    Tauzin is not wanting to block the do-not-call list. He wants to make sure that it is done the first time correctly. Taking 6 months now to make sure that it starts out right will be a ton better then needing years later to correct issues with the call list.

    Tauzin is also concerned about the overlapping jurisdiction of the FTC and FCC. If the jurisdictional issues aren't dealt with before hand we might end up with 2 do-not-call lists or a prohibitive amount of regulation for companies to deal with.

    If this do-not-call list is going to work, we must stop and make sure that this is being implemented in the most effective manner.

    -Brent
    • we might end up with 2 do-not-call lists
      Or only a single list, and companies finding loopholes that allow them to fall under the non-list rules.
    • The title uses the word "delay", the spokesperson's statment saying Tauzin doesn't oppose the d-n-c list is the 2nd sentence, the word "block" is applied to the funding the same as in WP article.

      What is misleading?
    • billy billy billy.... if you gonna post to the list using a pseudonym, at least don't be so obvious about trying to cover for your position of "....not wanting to block the do-not-call list", "....doing it right the first time", and "....implementing it in the most effective manner". the taxpayers are smarter than that....
    • "Taking 6 months now to make sure that it starts out right will be a ton better then needing years later to correct issues with the call list."

      Okay, take a hint here from English lawmakers, and generalise it -- there are way too many US laws which address a specific instance of x and ignore x itself. Don't ban advertisement unsolicited emails, ban commercial unsolicited electronic messages, for example.

      And don't throw it to the lawyers to enforce, either. A good law doesn't need sue and countersue and countercountersue to balance things, it should be an elegant solution. Burden of proof on the caller and such like.

      And as this guy's campaign contributions, they look like the regular suspects who bribe-euh-*assist* the whole house; disney giving their standard salary for example. Need more than that to criticize.

  • May be good (Score:3, Informative)

    by aridhol ( 112307 ) <ka_lac@hotmail.com> on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @04:07PM (#5042811) Homepage Journal
    After reading the article, I see the second-to-last paragraph, where they mention the FCC. Basically, the FTC hasn't been talking with the FCC. This means that if the list were to go through in its current form, there are many types of telemarketing that would not be bound by it. This delay is to review the proposal, and to bring the FCC, who controls areas that the FTC doesn't, into the picture.

    To say it plainly: In the current form, a credit card company could call you even if you're on the do-not-call list. Once the FCC is in the picture, that credit card company is also blocked from calling.

    • The credit-rating agencies jointly offer a service designed to prevent pre-approved credit card offers from being sent. As you probably have heard, these offers can be a security risk if someone pilfers one and fills it out with their address (why the credit card companies don't use better security is beyond me).

      More information from FTC. [ftc.gov]

      Note this is a junk mail problem, lasts just 2 years, and won't suppress offers from companies that do not use the credit-rating agencies -- but the call is automated and really fast. The FTC also lists the addresses for DMA junk mail and telemarketing opt-outs.

  • Call blocking must be in place already. (Score:3, Funny)

    by m_chan ( 95943 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @04:22PM (#5042915) Homepage
    I tried to call and voice my opinion. When I rang Mr. Tauzin, I got this message:
    We're sorry, but the committee you are trying to reach is temporarily out of order.


    Please check the number in your bank account and try your call again in six months or when you have Michael Powell in your back pocket.
  • ...to investigate it now and block it if it doesn't pass muster?

  • Billy has an intellectual interest in this bill? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2003 @05:55PM (#5043275) Homepage

    This story would sound reasonable, except that there is another story in which the facts are easier to check: Telephone Price Wars Called Off [washingtonpost.com]. The story says that the long distance companies are losing money and need to raise their rates. I think the truth is that providing long-distance services has become cheaper, and they are only trying to squeeze the customers. Why do I think that? Look at BigZoo [bigzoo.com]. That company is able to make a profit at 2.9 cents per minute and 75 cents per month.

    If you begin to doubt the "telephone companies are poor" story, then it is likely that you will doubt the "Billy Tauzin is only thinking of how to manage this best" story.

    Here is a southern Repbulican man who, even though he is an adult, is still called by the diminutive name "Billy". Is is possible that he would take $16,250 [opensecrets.org] to slow the passage of extremely popular legislation while he tries to stop it? Has such a thing ever happened before? Or, is it true that Billy is taking an intellectual interest in the bill?

    Did this whole idea of having a do-not-call list jump into reality last week? No, it has been around for a long time. Billy Tauzin could have "studied" it before.

    A lot of newspaper stories are really paid advertisements for a point of view the payers want you to believe.
  • As a resident of Massachusetts, I will now take this moment to laugh in your collective faces.

    *laughs*

    That is all.
  • I caught a few minutes of the committee on C-SPAN this morning. Tauzin sure sounded like he was trying to get a reasonable understanding of how FTC's work was being done, and how it might mesh with the FCC.

    What struck me was their budget for this program -- $16 Million. I dunno - is it just me, or does $16M sound like a lot of money for a relatively simple database? (Or am I mistaken about the database being simple?)

    • "... is it just me, or does $16M sound like a lot of money for a relatively simple database?"

      Especially since I would be willing to do it for $250,000, no, make that $500,000.

      Place your bids now. We can send them to Billy's office, and show the price for the fraud it really is.

      • Consider the specifications of the system that will hold do-not-call information. Everyone who doesn't want their telephone system abused will make one entry into the database every time they change their telephone number. I figure, on average, one entry every two years.

        I've got a 386SX-16 computer around somewhere. That's probably overkill. Looks like I'll be making a profit on my $500,000 bid.
        • So at an average of two calls per day from people changing phone numbers, that bid would pay you to answer 410,000 calls per day? Okay, only 1/3 population would sign up, but 130,000 calls per day is still quite hefty.

          And that wouldn't even cover the enquiries from telemarketers wanting to check a phone number. Suppose you made an internet form to do so, you'd still need a fair few Oracle licenses, and a Solaris server or two.

          You wouldn't be able to publish the list; it's necessary for privacy that the telemarketer needs to ask "is 01291 272 272 okay to call", rather than just "tell me who I can't call"

      • Probably most of the expense is running the call center and web site that helps people sign up for the list. It has to be available when people want to use it, etc. I don't know if that costs $16 million, but it's more than just the cost of the hardware and initial DB setup time. There has to be some kind of permanent administrator for the thing, etc.

  • Have Doubts... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bri3D ( 584578 )
    We already have a no-call list in Colorado, and guess what the first thing that happened is? Companies had to pay for the list, and so the companies that couldn't pay couldn't call anyone. Also, Qwest(Ride a light? But Gandalf, how am I to find this light?) managed to get themselves out of having to use the list. Who knows what companies will slide out of this if it is used across the US?
  • If you don't like it, don't just post your whining on Slashdot.

    Tell Reps. Tauzin and Dingell how you feel about this by sending them email from the U.S. House's "Write Your Representative" website at http://www.house.gov/writerep/. Just enter the state of Lousiana and zipcode 70360-1111, and your email will go to Tauzin. Dingell is in Michigan at 48124-1111. Make sure you also send one to your own rep. Maybe a few thousand (dare I hope, 100,000?) protests will help them reconsider.

    Here's what I just sent them:

    "I am very disappointed that you have blocked the initial $16M funding for the FTC's proposed national do-not-call list, as reported by the Washington Port. The money requested is very small, and the benefit to consumers is very large. Most consumers strongly favor, AND WOULD USE, the list if offered it. That the telemarketers association opposes it is only to be expected, and should not affect the FTC being allowed to pursue its development.

    Please reconsider your action, and permit immediate funding for the FTC's nationwide do-not-call list.

    Thank you."
    • Heh, heh - time to be reactionary again...

      I'd write to the various Congresscritters and ask them to delay the do-not-call list while studying ways to mutate it into a please-call-me-list

      Before you flame me, think about it for a minute. If you're walking down the street, do I have the right to stop you while I try to sell you something? I don't think so. What I can do is put up a booth (local laws permitting) and hope you stop because you find it interesting. Telesales is exactly like that. You're at home, eating dinner or whatever, and the phone rings. The telesales company is betting that you'll stop whatever you're doing and pick it up.

      And before anyone says it, TV ads are not the same. The TV equivalent of telesales would be where the TV suddenly turns itself on, or switches the channel, in order to show an ad.

      Opting-out is complete bat puckey and whoever invented it needs a serious whack with a cluestick. It should be opt-in, and none of that "you indicated to one of our affiliates that you wanted to receive ads" crap either... That's just salesdroid-speak for "we copied their list in return for giving them ours"...

      Better start reading those EULAs (Phone co, ISP, M$, whatever) carefully - before long there'll be a paragraph that reads:

      "By using this product I hereby drop my name from all national and state do-not-call lists and will expect to get annoying phone calls and email at all times of day or night."

  • Tauzin W J 'Billy' U S Congressman
    426 Lafayette St
    Houma, LA 70360
    985-876-3033

    Perhaps if he took the time to ask each and every telemarketer to put him on their 'do not call' list, he may have a change of heart.

    Though maybe he'd take the easy road and call his friends at BellSouth that donated $16,250 to him [opensecrets.org]. I bet they have a 'do not call' list that doesn't take a year to get up and running...

    Of course signing someone else up for telemarketing is presumably some sort of electronic or mail fraud, so of course I'm not suggesting that anyone actually do this. This post is purely for entertainment purposes.
  • I don't understand why the telemarketing lobby is against the do-not-call list. Surely, it is an effective way of identifying the least receptive segment of the population and eliminating them from their advertising budget.

    Won't this result in more hits for less effort, or am I missing something blindingly obvious?

    BTW, here in the UK we have national do-not-call, do-not-mail and do-not-fax opt-out lists, and I'm on all three. So far, the DNC list seems to be working, but I still seem to get lots of junk mail for some reason. Oh, and I don't actually have a fax, but those telemarketers are so terribly cunning I though it best to cover all the bases...

    • Re:Why do telemarketers oppose this? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I can tell you why telemarketers oppose the list. They oppose the list because many people are too polite or simply too easily swayed or browbeaten by telemarketers and end up buying a lot of crap that they don't really want or need. For example, I know many people who claim they hate telemarketing calls and yet they STILL BUY CRAP FROM THEM WHEN THEY CALL!!!! However, every single one of these people have also told me that they would would sign up for a do-not-call list if one were available. Telemarketers know that they will lose a lot of business because there are many people like this, so they are fighting the lists.
    • It's because most of the people who buy from a telemarketer would still claim that they weren't interested in any telemarketed products or in so few as to outweigh the benefits of the ones they do like. By making a unilateral decision to block the ones they dislike, they also block the ones they might actually buy from.

      That's the legit reason telemarkers are opposed to this.

      The other reason is that most of them are scum who don't care that they make their living off of annoying people. They live for that small fraction that will answer the sales pitch and to hell with anyone who doesn't want to be a customer.
  • And it rocks. The only problem is that for some odd reason, churches and police officers are exempt. I think there are a couple other groups, but since I've been put on the list, i haven't been called by a telemarketer.

    Not once.

    This was a few years ago too.
  • Tauzin....one of the most paid off politicians in history! Once again, he shows how little he cares about the people who put him in office..and how much he cares about the telemarketing industry who helpe greas his pockets...

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close