FCC To Enforce Do Not Call List, Not FTC

Iphtashu Fitz writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Federal Communications Commission will step in and enforce the national Do Not Call list for the Federal Trade Commission. The FCC is coming to the aid of the FTC because of the recent lawsuit filed against the FTC over the list."

Why get the FCC involved?

[Lord Grey]

Unless I misunderstand something, it seems that the primary complaint from the Denver court was that the no-call list was discriminating. Non-profit and political cold-calling was still allowed under the plan.

Fine. Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Valdrax]

You can't really do that. Much of the justification for the DNC list is that commercial speech is treated differently from political and other speech in case law. Non-profits are not participating in commercial speech usually, and political cold-calling is purely political speech, which has the highest standards against restricting. Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain, many of the usual rulings that allow for the restriction of even political speech on your o

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[aheath]

How does the federal do not call list compare to junk fax laws? Do junk fax laws exempt political and non profit groups? Would an opt-in don not call law be as constitutionalyy objectionable as a an opt out do not call law?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[mkldev]

Junk fax laws are an entirely different animal. They make it illegal to make someone else pay for unwanted communication, in much the same way as it is illegal to hack some company's PBX system to use it as a relay for your long-distance calls. Your freedom of speech ends where it causes harm to others, and thus junk fax laws do not need to exempt anyone any more than anti-graffiti laws do.

Where there is no direct financial harm to the recipient, such as the DNC list law, these amount to nuisance laws, and fall under much closer scrutiny where freedom of speech is concerned, as well they should.

In a way, it is good to see this law receiving such close constitutional scrutiny. While the law's purpose is noble, if there are problems in the law, they need to be fixed now before they do actually prevent some form of speech that should be rightfully protected. That having been said, I suspect this law will hold up to scrutiny fairly well.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[hellfire]

Junk fax laws are based on the fax that they tie up resources. Its primarily a matter of degree. While not everyone has it, caller ID and call waiting can help you avoid or block an incoming call. Also, it takes you a few seconds to hang up on a telemarketer where it takes you upwards of a minute to even determine that a fax is a junk fax while you are waiting for at least part of it to print. And how many people know how to hang up on a fax and stop it from printing? By then the "damage" is done and s

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Fastball]

Also, since your telephone isn't treated as part of your home and personal domain,

Then why is it taxed as such? [ecommercecommission.org]. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear. You can say what you want, but I have the right to not listen. The DNC beautifully expresses my desire to not listen.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[MrResistor]

It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

You seem to have your "free as in speech" mixed up with your "free as in beer".

They are not the same.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Valdrax]

Then why is it taxed as such? [ecommercecommission.org]. It isn't really free speech then as I am paying for it, right?

That's a non-sequitur. The link has nothing to do with your phone number being treated as your private property, and the "free" in "free speech" has nothing to do with paying to use the medium in which it is expressed.

Bottom line, a person has the right to ignore, turn off, or otherwise for himself squelch free speech that he does not want to hear.

Actually, no. The US Supreme Court does not in general suppor

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[avdp]

Your right not listen means you have the right to hangup. I don't know how to translate into the right not to get a call.

Don't get me wrong, I want this law to win very badly. But I don't think your argument is the ticket. In my opinion, corporations are not people and therefore don't get free speech rights, and therefore don't have a right to call me. But the Nike case (and other) kind of muddied that a bit.

political campaigning without phone banking

[taxman_10m]

Can it be done?

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[swordboy]

Fine. Let's not discriminate: Make the other two organizations obey the list as well. An unwanted phone solicitation is just that, no matter who it's from.

What country do you live in?

In the US, you can't make the representatives create laws that are detrimental to their own interests. It isn't a democracy - it is a democratic republic. This is how a republic works.

I agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge - this is discrimination. But it is better than nothing. And nothing is what we will get if this discrimination issue is upheld.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[dillon_rinker]

this is discrimination
Absolutely. And when the Department of Defense picks Boeing over Honeywell, that's discrimination. And when the electorate chooses Reagan over Carter, that's discrimination. And when Congress offers tax credits to parents, that's discrimination.

And when you decide you want Mexican instead of Italian for lunch, that's discrimination. When you choose Gatorade over Budweiser, that's discrimination. When you decide to use Linux instead of Windows, that's discrimination.

To discriminate means to choose.

If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Telastyn]

Come on! We're not talking about political opinion, or philanthropy, we're talking about solicitation.

Political solicitation, charitable soliciation either way it's still about money, not people or love. If they weren't soliciting, the DNC list wouldn't apply...

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[argmanah]

To discriminate means to choose.

If you agree whole-heartedly with the Denver judge, then you believe that commercial speech is just as important as political and charitable speech. Looking at the roots of the words commerce, politics, and love, I'd conclude that, to you, money is as important as people and love. That's a pretty sad set of values. I think you need to either examine them or express yourself more clearly

The problem is that the discrimination is being applied to speech. The government is

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[Izago909]

The whole freedom of speech issue is crap. The constitution guarantees the right to speak, not the right to an audience. My right to be left the hell alone supercedes someone else's right to speech.

If I want to find out about charities to donate to, I don't need their one sided sales pitches to educate me. Political calls are even worse because you know that their product will probably screw you. I used to have real fun screwing around with the people on the other end of the line, but no I'm just bored.

I remember back when people used to bother you at the door. The Jehovah's Witness's who never come by any more were the most fun. Nobody would fully understand acting interested over the phone in the nude, but it's the best feeling in the world when you open the door on that warm sunny morning and everything is hanging just right. They don't come around here anymore. It's a shame that it takes do-not-call lists to do the same for telemarketers; I'd rather do it in person.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[royalblue_tom]

You are so right. But it's not just their right to "speech". This is about their "right" to speak explicitly *at* me, against my wishes, using equipment that I have paid for, invading the privacy of my home while they do it.

Bastards.

Re:Why get the FCC involved?

[iabervon]

This whole thing is a huge mess at this point.

First, a Oklahoma City court says that the FTC doesn't have the authority to regulate phone calls (previous story). In response, the FCC takes over (this story). Also, Congress specifically give the FTC authority to do this.

In Denver, the court buys the discrimination claim (sort of oddly, since discrimination has nothing to do with freedom of speach). The FTC plans to appeal the ruling.

Here is where it gets exciting: the FTC is adding to but no longer publis

Re:No

[(54)T-Dub]

No, the exluded those types because "Political parties" fall under non-profit.

Re:No

[(54)T-Dub]

Even free speach has it's bounds. For example, I believe that I have the right to kick protestors Off my private property. Since my telephone is on my private property I should think that the same rules apply.

Re:No

[Rick the Red]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

You seem to have no understanding of the law when it comes to political fundraising. Political speech is ALWAYS the most protected because politicians make the laws.

It is also the nature of a state of oppression to restrict political speech that disagrees with those in power. This is, iirc, the fundamental reason political speech is protected.

However, freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

Where I disagree with the Denver court is that I think the do-not-call list should be split according to preference, rather than a blanket rule that applies to all or none, depending on who signs up. I don't mind political and charity phone calls. I can shrug them off. There's these people that call every now and then wanting stuff for the blind, and I don't mind the calls. One of these days, they'll call whenever I'm about to dump a bunch of stuff, and they'll get it. But my wife actually minds these calls because they're intrusive to her. Point is, some people want these calls, and some don't, and if it's going to be an issue with the do-not-call list, then let's let the people signing up for the list decide what calls are allowed and what aren't.

Re:No

[Rick the Red]

that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

While I agree with your position, I believe Congress would say that if you don't want political solicitation phone calls, unplug your phone.

Of course, that's the telemarketer's position, too :-)

My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

My point is that this is Yet Another Law where Congress has exempted themselves. They can do this because they make the laws. They gave us campaign finance reform, too, but you'd better believe the system still gives incumbents an advantage.

Actually, you're completely right about this, and I've gotten flamed a lot for stating this sentiment exactly. :)

Re:No

[zurab]

First off, I am in no way in support or associated with any phone/e-mail/anything else telemarketing; so here's my opinion.

freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to hear what you have to say. While I agree that you have the right to say it, that doesn't mean I have an obligation to listen. To get back ontopic, that means that if I don't want political solicitation phone calls, then those people can't call me.

This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.

Imagine, now, if the argument you are making was valid in all circumstances, then it would be constitutional to outlaw peaceful demonstrations; it would be constitutional to outlaw a person approaching you on the street and offering you a brochure about a peaceful demonstration. Telephone lines are one of the methods delivering such "speech", like newspapers, TV, books. If strictly enforced, the only "free speech" that could be allowed under such laws would be a whisper in your basement.

Obviously, you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody's speech - you can ignore demonstrators on the street, you can say "no thank you" to a person offering you a brochure and keep walking, and you can simply hang up the phone, or ask to be taken off some list you somehow got on.

If you look carefully, the actual problem of telemarketing does not lie in whether speech over the phone lines is any of government's business, and how they can regulate it. The actual problem lies with your local phone service providers selling your personal information to anyone who requests it without your consent. You rightly mention that some people do not mind, or would like to get some types of calls, others none at all. The solution should be an "opt-in" type of system if you'd like your phone number shared for this purpose; otherwise, it should be illegal for phone service providers to share your information without your consent. It's simple and easy! Yet, it's not popular with big corporate interests, not good for campaign contributions, and, therefore, will never come up!

Re:No

[fucksl4shd0t]

I'll start off by saying that I think we're actually in agreement, but you'll have to read the whole thing. :) So if I piss you off early, just hang in there.

This argument has been overused and misapplied. I understand how you don't have an obligation to listen to anybody, but non-existence of such obligation does not on its own trump others' free speech rights. i.e. their rights to speak to you, and to others.

Absolutely correct. The argument is frequently misapplied. As in here:

Imagine, now, if the

Brief Explanation

[Valdrax]

A quick Google search turns up the history [abuse.net]. To summarize, it's a matter of whether or not commercial interests have the same rights as citizens. The Nike case that the Supreme Court recently dimissed highlighted very passionate arguments from both [reclaimdemocracy.org] sides [yourpropertyrights.org] of the issue of Corporate Personhood.

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different. However, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that several forms of speech are not protected. Libelous or slanderous speech is not protected. Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected. Speech that somehow violates your property rights, such as political or religious campaigning on your doorstep or in your house is not protected. For many years, neither was commercial speech in many ways, and discrimination of content based on the fact that it is commercial in nature has been allowed. This is the discrimination that the telemarketers seek to attack.

opt-in vs. opt-out

[siskbc]

The DNC does restrict speech. It restricts the ability of a telemarketer to call you up and talk to you. "Free speech" in its most literal form cannot be taken to mean anything different.

The difference here is that this is an opt-in list (ie, I have to take action to prevent telemarketers from reaching me), as opposed to an opt-out list, where the free speech of telemarketers would be abridged.

I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.

The DNC list is similar. If it were a blanket "no telemarketing" law that placed people on the list unless they personally removed themselves, that would likely be a huge free speech violation. But at the point where I have told them NOT to contact me, they're obliged to cease. The DNC list simply serves as an efficient means of processing my request not to be disturbed. However, it is fundamentally no different on the phone vs. at my door - I have personally requested not to be disturbed, and they are required to honor that request.

Re:opt-in vs. opt-out

[the argonaut]

I believe this makes a huge difference. Putting things in a standard free-speech context, solicitors have a right to come up to my door and knock, UNLESS I have told them to go away OR posted "No solicitation." In other words, when I have expressed my opinion as not wanting to hear their speech, they're obligated to cease disturbing me.

Not entirely correct. Your "no soliciting" sign is generally about as meaningless as declaring the sky is purple (setting aside the question of air pollution and suns

Re:More Protection??

[Sphere1952]

Very good! However, this is still not a completely settled issue. The Supreme Court has been very slow to allow any restriction of truthful speech, even commercial, based upon content -- as in, they've never done so except with regard to pornography (which they seem to be backing away from over time). At the same time, they have recognized a right to privacy (abortion clinic cases) and noted the right to free association.

The end result I'd like to see is a list various categories which I can elect to receive or not receive (e.g. commercial, religious, charitable cash, charitable other, political). I don't know how to fit this into the legal landscape, but I'd ban all but charitable other from my house. (I'm willing to give old clothes to charity, and that is about it.)

Re:More Protection??

[Sphere1952]

"shouting fire in a crowded theater is a crime"

Not exactly. If there is a fire it is not a crime.

More interesting in this regard are the decisions regarding insurection from the 1950s. Basically the Congress/states can make laws against speech which leads to immediate action, but not against speech which might in the future lead to action.

No Calls, Period

[darkstar949]

The Do Not Call list is a good step in the right direction, but I am paying for my phone and I don't want any calls from anyone unless I give them my phone number. There for why should it matter if it is a sales call or a charity call, they both should not be allowed to call me at home.

Re:No Calls, Period

[ewhenn]

Actually.....

In the US calls placed to a residential land line are paid for by the caller.

Calls places to a cell phone are paid for by the caller AND have the potential to use the cells mins.. hence why it is illegal to call cell phones for telemarketing.

Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[raehl]

Two government agencies cooperating to implement a consumer-popular policy?

Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?

Re:Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[jaaron]

Who are these people, and what have they done with my real government?

Hopefully something very dreadful and permanent. :)

Re:Did I wake up in Bizarro world today?

[Sloppy]

Your real government is alive and well. It is following its age-old pattern of expanding its powers in the name of a popular cause.

TPS

[caluml]

I joined the TPS ( Telephone Preference Service) [tpsonline.org.uk] in the UK - hey presto, 20 calls a week, down to zero. Now I don't get any calls. :( Somebody ring me :(
But I miss the fun of being as rude and as crude as you like to the female telemarketters. Never stopped them calling though.

Re:TPS

[caluml]

Oh yeah, of course. Twat.

Great support

[Pedrito]

Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.

I guess that's what happens when an entire nation faces down an association with no lobbying skills. Now if we could just be this effective on a few of the slightly more important issues like civil rights, pre-emptive wars, and so forth.

Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

The subject says it all.

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

You're close. The way to fix it is to forbid people (i.e., customers) from doing business with spammers. Order viagra online and go to jail!

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[William Tanksley]

Have you thought about that?

The problems are manifold. Do you get locked up because a person you had ordered from spammed? Do you get locked up if you ordered directly because of a spam? How do they prove that you ordered because of a spam?

And would this have the same success as the War on Drugs?

-Billy

Re:Next list needed: DO NOT SPAM

[Rick the Red]

Have you thought about that?

Of course not! This is Slashdot!

Re:Great support

[yroJJory]

Have you ever seen such resolve and support on a single issue in the U.S.? I mean, after 9/11 politicians and government agencies weren't moving this quickly.

Sure they were. They passed a 500-page piece of legislation in the course of a few days. At least this most recent one was only a page, which means they might have actually read it.

Maybe.

Makes sense

[SparklesMalone]

Since the phone line is paid for by the person receiving the call this is a problem of communication, not trade. If the FCC had this job from the get-go maybe the exemption for charities and political groups wouldn't have been considered. After all the FTC has no authority over those groups.

I'm no fan of W but this makes sense.

Re:Makes sense

[royalblue_tom]

Except of course, they would have then argued the other way - that the telemarketing firms are comercial entities advertising products for sale, and so are governed by the FTC.

The exemption will always be there - the FTC considered it, and dropped it due to supreme court precident. The recent court ruling seems to show no understanding of the comercial vs non-comercial speach debate.

first amendment

[ih8apple]

From the New York Times [nytimes.com](no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

Re:first amendment

[xcomputer_man]

According to what I heard on the news this evening, the FCC will be enforcing the list *in spite of* the courts.

This is beginning to get very interesting. After all, the executive branch is supposed to be the judiciary's teeth for enforcement anyway!

"50 million americans" vs. the opinion of a single benchwarmer...

Re:first amendment

[Telastyn]

I certainly hope that the FCC is not successful. A government that acts above law leads to nothing good.

I certainly hope this goes through the courts nice and speedily, and that they allow the list. After all, how many "No solicitation" signs are posted around the nation? I'm not up to snuff on case law, though I can't imagine they haven't been tested in court yet... Why would a near identical sign put up regarding telephone solicitation be any different?

But most importantly, this sort of thing should f

The beauty of this...

[TWX]

...is that the FCC doesn't have to deal with "prevention of free speech", because the telephone is a regulated medium. The FCC can state that the telemarketting firms are not allowed to call people who are paying for telephone lines since the people didn't obtain their phone lines for someone else to use, but for they themselves to use. So, since the telemarketting firm isn't paying for the phone line, they can't legally call on it for unsolicited business purposes.

As far as "Free Speech" goes, they are fully entitled to get a billboard, print a publication, run an ad in a magazine or newspaper, the act of presentation isn't being stopped. The medium is already regulated and has been since inception.

Re:The beauty of this...

[Telastyn]

Very interesting! I had not thought of it this way. I'm still not sure that's a very good thing either, [see DSL problems with *bell] but at least it's by the book.

Re:first amendment

[zerocool^]

One thing to keep in mind is this: It's not 50 Million Americans. It's 50 Million Phone Numbers.

Roughly 300 million people live here. But, take out cell phone numbers, and the number of "numbers" that telemarketers can call currently is far less. 50 million is a huge chunk of that.

Consider that, in my apartment, we all have a cell phone, but it's already illegal to call a cell phone. But, we only have 1 number for the apartment. That's a 4:1 ratio, and i suspect this is duplicated quite a few places

Re:first amendment

[jimmcq]

The first ammendment gives you the right to say whatever you want to willing listeners. It does NOT give you the right to force the unwilling to listen to you. The Do Not Call list is just a way for people to let telemarketers know that they are unwilling. How does that violate the First Ammendment?

Re:first amendment

[elmegil]

It obviously doesn't, but it has to go through the process now to prove it. I still don't see how that gives the FCC any more power to enforce than the FTC, unless someone thinks the FCC pulls more "clout" somehow.

Re:first amendment

[shaldannon]

I'd guess they think since the FCC is responsible for governing communications that it has more jurisdiction...but as you say, it still has to wade its way through the court system.

Re:first amendment

[Jason1729]

That argument makes no sense though. The first amendment makes it illegal for the government to pass laws preventing telemarketers from existing at all, but it doesn't prevent people from refusing to hear the messages in a legally binding way.

The same arguement can be used to say the right to make harassing phone calls is protected free speech. In that case, all restraining orders are invalid because they violate the first amendment.

The do not call registry can be taken as a set of restraining orders

Re:first amendment

[TheRealStyro]

Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

Go read the very good book "Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights" by Thom Hartman for more information. Link [amazon.com].

Re:first amendment

[HardCase]

From the New York Times(no reg required):
"another federal judge issued a ruling that would prevent the government from carrying out the do-not-call registry, citing First Amendment grounds."

According to this, the FCC has no more right to enforce it than the FTC.

The judge ruled that the FTC could not enforce the do not call registry. He didn't say that the FCC couldn't enforce it. I guess what that means is that one of the telemarketers (or an organization) will then have to get another ruling regardi

Re:first amendment

[mcelrath]

This whole thing is a clear violation of the first ammendment. We are attempting to legislate that some groups may express their views by calling you and others may not. That we like one group and not the other does not matter, it is a clear violation of the first ammendment. That our representatives don't understand this is a sad, sad statement about how well they understand the constitution.

The correct way to solve this is to de-classify corporations as individuals, and create a new category for "cor

Happy Dance

[thomas.galvin]

One of the very few instances of a beuracracy not getting in its own way. I suppose, if you get enough people angry, the government can still be on the people's side. Happy dance!

Now if we can hurry up and get that 1st ammendment case overruled...

Seriously, though, high marks for pretty much everyone involved in this one.

Free Speech? How About Free to Not Listen!

[Urantian]

The big argument against the do-not-call list has been the violation of free speech on the part of the solicitors.

That might make sense. But, what about the right to not listen if we so choose?

I think the real argument is that the solicitors will lose potential money, due to having a smaller call list. However, there is no law against that.

Plus, why limit the do-not-call list to just those involved in commercial purposes. If I don't want to hear from solicitors, that includes people raising money for

Re:Free Speech? How About Free to Not Listen!

[91degrees]

This is a very important question. Since the First amendment was written, the world has changed. We really need to consider whether speech actually requires both the listener and the speaker. Purely on the grounds of semantics, it doesn't. There is freedom for the speaker only.

However, in the past it has never been considered a problem. You actually have to make a positive effort to buy and read a newspaper, or watch a broadcast. You don't get the same level of choice with telemarkating.

It's a po

I have an idea

[PD]

Why not have the Department of Defense administer the list? That'd be some spectacular enforcement. It'd bring the troops home too. Might even find Saddam making phone calls.

Behold...

[MrLizardo]

And you shall know that the end times have arrived because US government agencies shall cooperate to implement things the tax payers actually want! And Apple shall have the fastest computers available! Linux will go mainstream! BeOS will come back from the dead! Behold and repent for surely we have reached the end of times!

(Brought to you by MrLizardo, your local not-for-profit prophet)

-AX

I'm supposed to feel good about trusting this ...

[burgburgburg]

to Michael "One News Organization to Rule Them All And In the Darkness Bind Them" Powell?

I'm unplugging the phone and going back to carrier pigeons.

let the real spamming begin

[akb]

As soon as all those hucksters have to close down their call centers what do you think they are going to do? Hmm, maybe try another form of direct marketing? I hear this new fangled Internet thing isn't saturated yet.

They have not yet begun to spam.

Why wouldn't they comply?

[tessaiga]

I found the following quote particularly interesting:

The Direct Marketing Association, representing more than 70 percent of the telemarketing industry, asked its members last week to abide by the list. Nearly 200 of the largest members have voiced no objection to the request and some have actively pledged to comply, association spokesman Louis Mastria said Monday.

Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this. Effectively it lets them weed out calls to households who don't want their stuff that would waste their call times, and let them focus on spamming people who are more likely to be responsive. Given how much the telemarketing industry is focused on cranking up their purchases-per-minute, it's not surprising that many companies agreed to abide by the list.

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[xenoweeno]

There is also a small bit of fine print that you would think would motivate them quite a bit: it's federal law.

The fact that they will hem and haw and weakly "ask" it's member to comply, even in the face of that fact, says something about the people we are dealing with (or, I guess, who are trying to forcefully deal with us.)

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[rgmoore]

The reason that some telemarketers don't want to abide by the list is that people aren't as rational as you'd think. There are some people who simply have a very hard time saying no to telemarketers when they call, even though they know perfectly well that they don't need what the marketers are selling. Those people are the ones who will benefit the most by not being called, since for them it's not just a matter of being disturbed but also of spending lots of money on unnecessary stuff. It's precisely th

Mod this up!

[Dr_LHA]

Moderators: Please mod the parent of this up. I'm tired of seeing the same old argument on Slashdot that the Do Not Call List is good for telemarketers, which is clearly not true

Re:Why wouldn't they comply?

[ChaosDiscord]

Given that the Do Not Call list consists solely of people who are

not interested in buying telemarketers' products, you'd think they'd be happy about this.

While that's the common sense case, it fails to account for the fundamentally irrational behavior of people. People know they should eat healthy, but they eat junk food anyway (mmmm, junk food). They know they should exersize, but they put it off. And they know that they shouldn't trust random strangers who interrupt them to with telemarketing offers

Not going to buy anything anyway!

[Comen]

I think of this list as just saving these stupid people the time of calling me and making me mad and not selling anything anyway.
I mean for to many years now they have called me, made me mad and didnt sell a damn thing.
I can tell them right now they have zero fucking chance of selling me anything. I have never bought anything over the pohne, I have never even listened so someone telling me I might have won a trip or money, I tell them to leave me alone.
So why they would be so upset I want to be on a list th

Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[Wonko42]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway. The amount of time and money telemarketers will save just by not having to call those people has got to be substantial. Someone who hasn't gone to the trouble of putting themselves on the do not call list is almost certainly going to be much more receptive to an unsolicited sales pitch.

The government is doing telemarketers a huge favor, while at the same time benefitting the general public. It's a win-win situation. What's the problem?

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[rgmoore]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them.

It's more logical than you think. One very important subset of the people who don't want the calls are those who don't want them because they work. I don't understand their psychology very well, but there are apparently some people who simply find it very difficult to say no to telemarketers, and those people often find themselves spending a lot of money on things they don't need as a result. OTOH, many of them apparently have no problem with going to a web site to register not to be called in the first place- they only have a problem saying no to a person. If you prevent telemarketers from calling those people, which the DNC should do, then telemarketing will be much less profitable. Of course the telemarketers don't want to stand up and say, "You have to let us call the poor suckers who don't really want to buy from us but can be talked into doing so anyway," so they phrase everything in free speech terms, but that's what the real issue is.

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[peeping_Thomist]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

Many people on the list (such as myself) sometimes buy products or services as a result of phone solicitations, but would prefer, all things considered, to get no such calls (since most of them are just annoying). The telemarketers will lose a lot of business when this list is enforced, but it's their own fault for not policing

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[thomas.galvin]

What boggles my mind is why telemarketers think their job is going to be harder with a list of people who don't want to receive calls from them. That's the most absurd logic ever.

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

What they are worried about are the people that, 99% of the time, are too polite to say "ring off," and end up buying whatever pap the telemarketer is selling. If they are unable to reach these people, profits

Re:Who wouldn't benefit from a do not call list?

[ChaosDiscord]

The FTC basically wants to give telemarketers a list of people who, 99% of the time, will just hang up on them anyway.

1% would be a pretty good return rate.

Also, the telemarketers believe that the return rate on numbers on the Do Not Call list will be higher than 1%. Many people logically know that buying stuff from a telemarketer is a bad idea, but when confronted with a high pressure salemen start reacting emotionally and may make a bad decision.

Basically telemarketers are seeking permission to con

It's taking TWO federal agencies?!

[pi_rules]

OK, give me a break. How hard is it, really, to enforce this? How many freaking people does it really take to:

- receive a complaint
- Verify the call with the telco
- write them up and get it in front of a judge.

It's a pretty cut and dry matter if you ask me. It won't take long for the agencies to get hit so bad that they'll just plain quit.

Hey, I'm all for privacy and such, but commercial places -can- be monitored. Why not just round up all the outgoing calls made from the commercial call center and c

The judge may be happy. Guess why?

[netringer]

The judge who held up the enforcement of the Do Not Call list may be happy that the FCC gave him an out.
His phone number is on the list! [yahoo.com]

That, and there's all those phone calls he's been getting from consumers who wanted to show what tehy could with the "rights" he was upholding.

How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights?

[jason.hall]

Can someone explain how this is restricting telemarketers' First Amendment right? They can still "speak" all they want - I just don't want them to speak to me. Does the right to free speech mean there's a REQUIREMENT that they have an audience to listen? An unwilling audience?

Re:How is this imposing their 1st Amendment rights

[91degrees]

The right to speak does implicitely include the right to be heard. They seem to be stretching the right a little to think it includes the right to force it on people.

Exactly the same reasoning would give you the constitutional right to break into a newspaper publisher, and use their printing presses to publish your own newspaper.

Your chance to help your fellow neighbor...

[Anonymous Coward]

To add a number to the do-not-call-list(TM), you enter the number in a web site. You then give the web site your e-mail address, and respond to a delivered e-mail address to confirm you want the number added. ANY e-mail address works. So, if you want to be DoublePlusGood today, you could:

1) Write a bot that adds one number at a time to the DNC list, starting with 000-000-0000 and ending in 999-999-9999.

2) Autoresponder bot at e-mail address will respond to DNC email, confirming you want the number on

The "Do not call list" is something that...

[Osrin]

.. the TelCo's should have been able to step up and do a long time ago. In the same way as I choose not to have my number listed in a directory I should also be able to choose for it not to be able to telemarketeers, pet stores and any girls that I've met in clubs. (or whatever matrix of people I choose to keep my number private from).

The choice to use their service should be mine, I would be happy to pay for such a service *if* the TelCo could enforce it.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot users are torn...

[BTWR]

George Bush signed this bill into law, so Slashdot users are torn, between their blind anti-Bush sentiment and their anti-telemarketer sentiment. Hmmm....

For the record, I'm not a republican. I'm from New York and voted, very happily I might add, for Hillary Clinton. I just find blind partisianship (either side) awful, and abundant here on /.

My Telephone is NOT a Public Forum

[Nom du Keyboard]

What the (IMHO idiotic) Denver Judge fails to understand is that my personal telephone is not a public forum. As such, it is not subject to any First Amendment considerations. (Also IMHO airports aren't public forums either, although the court has disagreed.)

If my telephone is a free-speech public forum, then one could easily argue that anyone should be able to knock on my front door and demand to be allowed into my house to make their sales pitch under the U.S. Constitution. They're not -- and neither is my phone.

Btw, I've heard that not only is the Denver judge's office telephone already on the Do Not Call List, but also that large numbers of people are demanding his home phone so that they can exercise their own First Amendment rights.

Equal Protection, Free Speech

[salesgeek]

I suspect that the telemarketers are here to stay as the only ban that will meet the equal protection standard is the LIST APPLIES TO ALL CALLERS - commercial, noncomercial or even private.

Freedom of speech is another issue all togather. What good is free speech if no one can hear you?

Judges' phone numbers

[daemonc]

Here are the office phone numbers for the two state judges that ruled against the Do Not Call list:

Lee R West - [phone], Edmond, OK 73003
The 'Honorable' Lee R. West
Senior United States District Judge
Western District of Oklahoma
U.S. Courthouse
200 N.W. Fourth St. Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Rm 3001, Courtroom 303, Third Floor
Chambers Telephone: [phone]
Chambers Facsimile: 405-609-5151

and the more recent one:

Judge Edward W. Nottingham
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse A1041 / Courtroom 14
(303) 8

Re:It will never succeed.

[Jordy]

Uh. The whole idea that companies run the government is absurd and frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing it from fear mongers.

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out, corporate taxes would be nullified, companies would have the right to vote, environmental protections would go away and corporations would be protected from lawsuits by the public.

Futher, the idea that corporations are evil is more BS.

Re:It will never succeed.

[petermdodge]

If you define evil as unfeeling and not worried about morality, then about 8/10 or 80% of the companies out there are evil.

(I personally praise the other 20%)

So I don't get what you're talking about. It's not about what's helping the good of humanity for those big corporations. It's about how to better line their wallet.

Re:It will never succeed.

[petermdodge]

When the profit is made to the determent of another person, even a single person, it is immoral.

Re:It will never succeed.

[fucksl4shd0t]

While I agree with your post in spirit, I will contest it.

If it was true monopoly laws would be thrown out

Monopoly laws work to the advantage of many corporations, who would not exist without competition.

corporate taxes would be nullified,

This is in blatant contrast to your last statement. If "the people" run the government, why are we taxed? Why aren't businesses the only ones taxed? Because *someone* has to pay for government if we want it, and even if corporations ran the government, they'd stil

Re:It will never succeed.

[RocketScientist]

Why throw the monopoly laws out when you can just not enforce them? Where's the Microsoft case at again? Oh yeah, settled as soon as GWB got his feet underneath him.

If the people are running the government now, then why do we pay taxes?

Companies vote all the time. Enron was one of the largest contributors to both the DNC and the RNC, so they even got to vote TWICE.

Arsenic in drinking water isn't good enough for you? Getting rid of Kyoto (which, admittedly, is a REALLY BAD IDEA ANYWAY) isn't enough?

A

Re:It will never succeed.

[Aidtopia]

• The monopoly laws are still on the books, but most would agree they're hard to enforce. Microsoft got off relatively easy after being convicted of illegal practices with respect to their (legal) monopoly.
• Corporate tax rates are at historic lows at all levels of government.
• Companies cannot vote, but their executives and lobbyists have unprecedented access to our representatives. Some would argue this is a more direct route to getting the government you want than actually voting.
• Environmental protection

Re:What about the 1st Amendment Challenge

[Hank Reardon]

A First Amendment challenge will (most likely) fail. There's already been several cases that have ruled commercial speech not protected under the First Amendment.

Re:Ever notice...

[perp]

There is a Canadian do-not-contact list by the Canadian Marketing Association [the-cma.org].

The CMA says that 80% of direct marketers in Canada belong to their organization and are apparantly obliged to honour this list.

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[VCAGuy]

Now that will never happen. The USPS gets too much money from bulk mailing for them to even consider that...you think $0.37 for a first-class letter is high? It may be much worse...

Re:Do-Not-Mail list?

[kimgh]

there already is one: remove.org

Re:Opt-In and Opt-Out

[EzInKy]

I doubt you're alone here. I don't answer a call unless I recognize the number and skim the messages for anyone who may have called that is important. Email has become nearly completely useless, thank goodness for throwaway accounts.

The worse though is web page advertising. Banners never really bothered me and I would occasionally click on one, even buy a product. Now that they've become so obnoxious I use every trick I can think of to get rid of them.

Seven Years Of Bad Luck For Your Argument

[Steve B]

This is a variation of the "broken window fallacy" (a hooligan who breaks windows is arguably a boon to the economy because he generates demand for the glass industry).

The flaw in the "broken window fallacy" is that in the absence of the hooligan the extra money spent on glass would not vanish, but would instead be spent elsewhere. Similarly, any money not spent on products advertised by telephone spamming would not vanish, but would (all together now) be spent elsewhere. The money spent on telespamming

Re:well... get ready for a long recession..

[Steve B]

But that's the point - telemarketing is by far the *most* successful selling method out there.

Stealing is the *most* successful *buying* method out there -- 0% down, with 0 monthly payments of $0. By your "logic", it ought to be legalized.

What the hell are these people going to do??

There are many professions more honorable and respectable than telephone spamming, such as turning tricks or selling crack.

There are 4 million people - 4 million people - doing these jobs, and when telemarketing goes, th