'Do not call' list blocked by court

CNN Money ^ | September 24, 2003 | Reuters

[rattrap]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national "do not call" list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls, the Direct Marketing Association said on Wednesday.

The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to the DMA.

[usadave]

Now they have 50 million verified names and phone numbers. What a great scam!!

Yes, 50 million verified names and phone numbers of people who don't want to be called by telemarketers. So why would telemarketers even waste their time calling people who don't want to be called by telemarketers? Actually the no-call list is a benefit to the telemarketing industry because it essentially weeds out those phone numbers that the telemarketers would be wasting their time by calling. This way, the telemarketers can focus on those phone numbers that aren't on the no-call list. Also, telemarketers already have access to lists showing every phone number in the United States, so the no-call list is not a scam in any way.

[Naspino]

No even better for both phone and e-mail is a digital service that allows you to setup WHO you WANT to call you and everyone else has to submit an online request that you can browse at your leisure. End of problem.

[ibheath]

Simply not true. I am a mortgage broker in KY. We hire a telemarketing company to call people to see if they are interested in refinancing. Here in KY, there is a legal no call list. The lists of homeowner names and numbers, which cost money, are scrubbed for people on the no call list. Many times the people reached are interested in talking to someone. Those names and numbers are passed on to a loan officer who follows up to see if the client is helped. There are legitimate calls. If you cannot tell the difference, hang up. I personally don't talk to telemarketers. BUT, I don't hate them or begrudge them the work they do.

Don't give the federal govt more power. It doesn't handle it well.

[Robert A Cook PE]

How many "judges" (or was there only one judge) made this ruling?

In CA, 3 democratic (extremist liberal - appointed by Carter and Clinton) judges overruled the call for an election that 1.7 million voters signed for.

Here, 50 million "voters" VOLUNTARILY sent their own names into the list, and were overruled arbitraily.

But was it one man. (One woman?) Only three? Who appointed them?

What Senator "recommended" them to be appointed?

[Naspino]

The whole point is WHY do you want the government to be able to interfere in your life this much? The federal govt has very specific duties outlined in the constitution. Anything that exceeds those limits should be fought vigorously.

I'll set aside the constitution to see telemarketters jailed and executed. My hatred for them is limitless. :)

[ibheath]

To date, absent their regulation, how many Co's do you think would voluntarily respect your "right not to be called"?

Could you point that out in the constitution? I cannot seem to find that right in there............

[ibheath]

I'll set aside the constitution to see telemarketters jailed and executed. My hatred for them is limitless. :)

You have no idea how many americans agree with what you said right there. Unfortunately, it isn't just telemarketers they would apply that too. That is what scares the daylights out of me. How many would throw away the constitution because the rights in there are inconvenient.

2nd Amendment anyone????

[js1138]

My hatred of telemarketers is limited. I only want all their personal phone numbers published. Same for telephone company executives who fail to offer the option of blocking them.

[azhenfud]

"Could you point that out in the constitution? I cannot seem to find that right in there............"

Sure thing, it's enumerated just under a telemarketing co's "right to call when specifically asked not to".

[Tribune7]

I like my brother's "Anthony method." Solictor calls he hands the phone to his four-year-old son. "Daddy, why did that man hang up on me?"

[azhenfud]

It's gonna get interesting, because 10/1 is less than a week away.

[TontoKowalski]

You have no idea how many americans agree with what you said right there. Unfortunately, it isn't just telemarketers they would apply that too.

Your second sentence is a mouthful. I also want to jail and execute springbutt busybodies who want to subvert my expressed desire to be not-inconvenienced by solicitors stealing my time and attention.

[ibheath]

Springbutt busybodies??? and they are????

[Sandy]

BellSouth Privacy Director Costs me a $1.95 a month.

I have it too. Can't remember the last time a telemarketer called me. No need to sign up for some stupid nanny government service. Nice thing is, it blocks all unwanted calls, even the calls that are exempted under the FTC rule.

[kjam22]

To date, absent their regulation, how many Co's do you think would voluntarily respect your "right not to be called"?

Could you point that out in the constitution? I cannot seem to find that right in there............

It's next to the part about the right to a government funded abortion.

[ibheath]

ROLMAO
Thank you, you are right, I missed that. Isn't that just before the constitutionly protected right to sodomy?

[kjam22]

YEP

[Sandy]

Unless you're going to cocoon and limit yourself to a few dozen friends who can call...

That's not the way it works. Anyone who doesn't mind being identified on the caller ID can get through. Even if you don't want your number on the caller ID, you can still get through by simply stating your name after the beep. It's only the people who choose to remain anonymous who can't get through, which of course are the people that I don't want to talk to.

[joesbucks]

Why wouldn't telemarketers call the folks who signed up? Cause these same folks are still stupid enough to buy something

[Publius6961]

This is gonna get ugly.

If anyone has the right to invade my house electronically, how long before he claims the right to do it in person?

We need a Constitutional Amendment...

not telling what the subject is.