'Do not call' list blocked by court

CNN Money ^ | September 24, 2003 | Reuters

[cookcounty]

A new proposed company.

A phone service where the caller has to pay the reicipient for the call. I would pay a lot of money a month for that. Since this phone business is all gov't regulated anyway, how about a reg mandating that phone providers have to go along with this?

"The Party you are calling, at (405) 609-5000, is a subscriber to the "Caller-Pay" system. If you choose to stay on the line, you will be charged a 30 cent connection fee plus 10 cents per minute. If you prefer not to pay the fee, please ask the recipient to cancel the charge "

For the recipient: "If you would like to cancel the charge against the caller, please press "C" then "star" after the call."

[cookcounty]

"I just called and had no trouble getting through. They took my name and said they would register my complaint."

Why call and complain? Why not call and try to sell them something? Your car, your lawnmower, your old set of law books--you might get lucky. If they don't buy today, maybe they'll buy something tomorrow!

[Labyrinthos]

No, and I don't care. Blocking implementation is uncalled for under any circumstances.

You can't be that stupid, can you?

[ibheath]

The problem is that a judge decides to over-rule the decision of 50 million fellow Americans who have voluntarily chosen to place their names/numbers on the list those bureaucrats have offered.

That is fine, but on the other end of that list is criminal prosecution for those Co's who don't voluntarily not call people on that list.

[LTCJ]

What a grand idea. The one of the plaintiffs in this particular case, the Direct Marketing Association at 212 768-7277, is probably in the makert for computers, maybe even used ones. Call the
president of the Association directly at 212.768.7277, ext. 1604 (President's Office) or e-mail him at Presiden@the-dma.org and ask him if he'd like to buy your old 486!

[Labyrinthos]

I am pointing out the authority to regulate communications IS the responsibility of the FCC.

You are absolutetly correct and if the "do not call" list was a product of the FCC, then there would not be any debate, at least with regard to regulatory authority. The problem is that the "do not call" list was created by the FTC, not the FCC, and Congress has never given the FTC the express authority to do what it has done, although Congress has given the authority to the FCC, which has stonewalled for the last 11 years.

[cookcounty]

The problem is, some of us live in busy hosueholds, where the number of legitimate callers whom we would want to answer runs literally into the thousands (people from church, business contacts, school contacts, fellow employees, little league parents, republican party activists etc, etc,)

Unless you're going to cocoon and limit yourself to a few dozen friends who can call , everybody else will have to turn up as "unidentified" or their number (which i can't begin to memorize all those #'s., let alone my daughters' 950 close friends).

Anyway, I also don't want to have to run to the phone to find out who it is --Picking up the phone and telling them to shove it is the easy part. Getting interrupted and going to the phone to see what the screen says this time is the BIG pain.

[JoeGar]

I guess Americans need to take a more pro-active stance when they receive phone calls that they obviously don't want. Perhaps a "national reply" is needed ...

I suggest the "national reply" be a loud police whistle blown in the telemarketer's ear.

[azhenfud]

"That is fine, but on the other end of that list is criminal prosecution for those Co's who don't voluntarily not call people on that list."

True, but responsible Co's should bother to check before soliciting or if in the case where they can't, they should use other means to market their service/product.

[cookcounty]

Hooo-wweeee! The local talk show hosts starved for excitement are gonna have fun with this one!

[billbears]

Look, it's real simple. If the call comes from an automatic dialer it's blocked before the phone even rings. However if it comes from church, work, friends, etc. it comes through. I don't even have a caller ID feature on my phone. I don't think any of my friends even know I have it on my phone as it doesn't affect them

[azhenfud]

Congress has never given the FTC the express authority...

On February 13, 2003, the Congress passed the Do Not Call Implementation Act, which authorized the FTC to collect fees from sellers and telemarketers to "implement and enforce the provisions relating to the 'do-not-call' registry." The President signed this bill on March 11, 2003. Moreover, on February 20, 2003, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which authorizes the FTC to "implement and enforce the do-not-call provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule."

I believe Congress did....

[cookcounty]

Really? The people selling these should come up with a marketing plan. That link to SBC didn't offer this. Thanks I'll look into it.

[ibheath]

True, but responsible Co's should bother to check before soliciting or if in the case where they can't, they should use other means to market their service/product.

What a silly statement! How exactly do they solicit without contacting the prospect? Email, no.. that is spam... Hhhhmmmm, direct mail? lets see....17-30 cents... No, that would break the bank..... door to door...no, can't contact enough people fast enough....

The thing is, telephone solicitation works, otherwise it would not be profitable. If you are at dinner, do you want to be interupted? If the answer is no, then it does not matter who is calling. If it is an emergency, then you will be able to hear the messege on your machine and pick up the phone.

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.

[billbears]

You really should. Honestly I didn't believe it would work as good as it has. And I agree, I don't think they present it the best way in their advertising.

[Labyrinthos]

On another thread, I posted an analysis of the court's decision (post no. 203 or something like that). That's where the real issue lies -- Congress expressly authorized the FCC, back in 1992, to create a "do not call list," but the FCC did nothing. Congress never expressly authorized the FTC to create a "do not call list," but the FTC began the process of creating a list anyway. Then in 2003, Congress appropriated money to the FTC to facilitate the "do not call list," even though Congress never authorized the FTC to create the list in the first place. The issue is whether Congress, in appropriating the money, implicitly ratified the FTC's action, given the express delegation of authority to the FCC back in 1992. The court said "no." I disagree, but I wouldn't call the judge an idiot. Congress, certainly, but not the judge in this particular case.

[Captain Peter Blood]

The solution is to get Caller ID, yes a boon for the phones companies, also get call blocker and the problem is pretty much solved. It won't be free but wht else is there to do???

[cookcounty]

"What a silly statement! How exactly do they solicit without contacting the prospect? "

They can stand on the corner and offer their services until their first amendment rights make them hoarse. Have you EVER gotten a call from anyone who was offering something worthwhile? These telemarketers are just trolling for mentally feeble people to take advantage of. I don't have an obligation to help lower their expenses. They should get into an honest business. All telemarketers are scam artists.

[azhenfud]

Silly?

Those responsible Co's can get updated electronic lists that work with their automatic dialers. I don't know for sure, but I think those lists are free. Those who don't bother with the updates volunteer to get prosecuted if they abuse their "right to call". Believe it or not, there are still those not yet signed up.

To date, absent their regulation, how many Co's do you think would voluntarily respect your "right not to be called"? Don't expect more than can be counted on one hand.

[cookcounty]

Probably so. According to BellSouth's ad, they require "deluxe caller ID" and they don't bother to mention calls from automatic dialers, so I guess I'll have to call them and ask what it is they are actually offering. Thanks.