No Call List

The big issue I believe that the DMA has is the "teeth" that this law/regulation carries in the form of a fine for each violation/infraction. Yes, they have their own list, but it is totally voluntary if a telemarketer uses it and there are no repurcussions if they do contact a "do not call person".

With the passage of the law, they would have to do more work in filtering their call lists to make sure they don't call the wrong people as "A telemarketer who disregards the National Do Not Call Registry could be fined up to $11,000 for each call." As stated here...

As for telling the individual telemarketers to not call, I have had zero success in getting them to not call. I have had, in some cases, three calls from the same company in a one weeks span, and in which, I told them to remove me from their lists and to never call me again...

I can have a "No Solicitations" sign on my front door prohibiting someone from ringing my doorbell and trying to sell me something, why can't I have the same type of thing on my telephone??? They have the right to free speech, but I have the unalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And for me that is to not be disturbed by solicitors, either on my front door or on my telephone during my evenings home with my wife and daughter.

------------------
--George H
Currency Tracking Experiment...Where's George.com

My New Blog...Check it out

Jeremy: It doesn't matter what our culture deems acceptable. The government saying that one group can do it and another can't sets a very dangerous precedent and doesn't comply with the 1st Amendment. It's the old "gotta let the Klan demonstrate too" thing. I don't particularly like it, but it's just one of those issues where you have to take the good with the bad, otherwise the government might one day decide to keep you from doing something you want to do.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Blogs, photo albums - CampusFish
What time does the water show start?

Wow- I wasn't expecting a commercial speech argument on coasterbuzz. Anyways, Jeff you nailed the argument right on the head. I have no sympathy for telemarketers and would like to see the bill passed, but in its present form the bill has problems. Commercial speech gets the same first amendment protections as regular speech (unless you make false claims about a product). The government can regulate such speech by time, place and manner but can't pick on a particular type of speech just because it doesn't like it. The government can ban all telephone solicitations but can't ban speech made by companies selling products while at the same time allowing the same type of calls from charities and political committees.

As far as a persons right to privacy to be free from telemarketers- there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. Some judges have found such rights exist in the constitution in limited circumstances, but some conservative judges still believe no such right exists in any circumstances. Even if it was found that such right to privacy exists in these circumstances, the right to freedom of speech would have to be weighed against the right to privacy. However, if you find the right to privacy supercedes the right to free speech- then is it possible for a person who does not like the speech coming into his home on his tv, radio or computer to claim a right to privacy to be free from such speech?

While I have no problem with the goals of the list, its got problems as it is drafted. Even if the bill goes into effect, the best way to avoid the calls is to call-screen, use a cell phone, or get an unlisted number.

------------------
Dippin Dots- ice cream of the future since 1989

While many of you may not be concerned at the job loss this bill will cause, ANY loss of jobs in this country could affect your very own job. Especially if you are in a product or services related industry.

Anyone who is employed spends money. They may be spending money on what your company sells. These companies that everyone is trying to put out of business purchase goods and services directly related to their day to day business operations (ex computer equipment).

Unemployment in any industry affects people nationwide. Our ecomony sucks. Gas prices are highest they have been and the government takes no steps to get this extortion under control. And the price of gas also brings down the economy. It takes away free dollars that people would spend elsewhere on other products.

This bill is discriminatory as is. Do you think the politicians will cut their own methods of funding and support by passing a bill that covers all solicitation? If telemarketing is so evil, why are THEY wanting to continue to do it??????

Jeff: Of course it matters what our culture deems acceptable. Our government is supposed to be "Of the people, by the people, for the people" (at least in theory), so what "the people" say has to be taken into consideration. That "dangerous precedent" as I have pointed out *currently* exists in our federal government. This is not a 'slippery slope' that scares me at all. If that is the only argument holding up the process, I dont feel it is very convincing.
lata, jeremy

--who wonders why this is even a 'free speech' issue and thinks it was proper to dub it a "trade" issue

Super7,

You wonder why Not-for-profits, politicians, and certain others are exluded from the Telemarketing Do Not Call list?

Perhaps it is because they are not Telemarketers? Let's break the word down...Tele for Telephone, Marketers for, well, you get the idea.

Charities, politicians and the other specified groups are not trying to hawk their wares and as such are not covered by the Federal Trade Commission's range of control.

Do I want to be disturbed by any of the excluded groups? No, but the FTC - who originally crafted the DNC list - does not carry purview over these types of organizations.

------------------
--George H
Currency Tracking Experiment...Where's George.com

My New Blog...Check it out

Where does it currently exist where it isn't being challenged in the courts regarding the 1st Amendment? I'm not talking about government in general, I'm talking about one of the most fundamental concepts of American society.

If "the people" feel strongly about it, then "the people" need to change the 1st Amendment. That's the proper course of action, and that's why the courts made the decision they did.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Blogs, photo albums - CampusFish
What time does the water show start?

Taer the first amendment down!

Rob - couldn't resist
------------------
Rob - Jerk/Loser - Standing up for the unfunny and unattractive. - Click here for details

But Jeff, by putting a sign on my property saying "NO SOLICITORS ALLOWED" am I infringing on their 1st amendment rights? I don't think so. So why, by putting a virtual electronic sign on my phone saying the same thing, is it now a 1st amendment issue?

------------------
--George H
Currency Tracking Experiment...Where's George.com

My New Blog...Check it out
*** This post was edited by redman822 9/26/2003 3:09:33 PM ***

You don't own the phone network... there's a pretty serious difference there. I agree entirely that since you pay for the phone service, you should be allowed to decide (same argument is made for the fact you pay for e-mail service and shouldn't be spammed), but you don't need to have a phone. Silly, I know, but you aren't required to have one. Now, the problem lies in the fact that phone companies are inherently monopolistic in nature, so it's not like you can choose someone else, but that's the distinction.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Blogs, photo albums - CampusFish
What time does the water show start?

redman- You can put a sign in front of your house saying no solicitors because the first amendment does not prohibit you from avoiding speech you don't like. However, the first amendment does prohibits the government from making laws curbing speech. The government by creating the do not call list is in essence curbing certain speech it does not like.

------------------
Dippin Dots- ice cream of the future since 1989

Personally, I wouldn't mind not getting the charity calls either. I made a specified donation to a group through United Way...had money taken out of my monthly paycheck and sent to them. What did they do? They called me no less than once a month and mailed out letters almost as often asking for more donations. And they aren't the only ones. I've had it happen with the firefighters union, ACS, Leukemia Foundation and others.

Having an unlisted number, as mentioned before, makes no difference. Many telemarketers have automatic dialing systems that dial one number after another...eventually they will get to mine. Just by ANSWERING the phone tells them it's a working number. Telling them not to call again doesn't stop the calls.

I understand the reasons for blocking the DNC list as is, but it's frustrating, even with caller ID. Most of the calls I get, even having an unlisted number, are from telemarketer, charities or people wanting me to answer a survey. It's sad when I get more phone calls from them than I do from friends and family.

------------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
http://www.webtechnik.com/ebony/CPLady.htm

---

CPLady said:

Just by ANSWERING the phone tells them it's a working number.

---

Somewhat like sending an "unsubscribe" e-mail to the spammers? Basically, they then sell your address to anyone and everyone interested in sending bulk junk e-mail...;)
------------------
We're whalers on the moon, we carry a harpoon, but there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune...

Since Jeff mentioned spam, lets get into that...We are all in favor of goverment trying to stop spam marketing emails, isn't that then a issue of 1st amendment freedom of speech?

(sarcasm) Let the spammers run wild! Fill my mailbox with the crap! Don't trample on their 1st amendment rights! (/sarcasm)

If you can live without a phone, surely you can live without email...

They have their freedom of speech, but I have the freedom to not want them to bother me.

Telemarketers, even with the DNC lists in place still have their rights of free speech, they just need to contact people who want to be contacted. It is not as if the government is saying you cannot call anyone unless they ask TO BE CALLED. They are saying, "Call anyone you like, except the ones who don't want to be called."

Which, upon the face of it shouldn't be an issue because most (not all) telemarketers claim that if you ask to be removed, they will not call you anymore.

------------------
--George H
Currency Tracking Experiment...Where's George.com

My New Blog...Check it out

No proposed federal legislation intends to outlaw spam because test cases have already shown it would be unconstitutional. What they do propose is that you can't forge e-mail headers and you must provide a valid means to remove yourself from their list.

The list would probably be perfectly valid, but if they intend to get it through the courts, it has to be amended to prohibit all telemarketing, non-profit, commercial or otherwise.

You can't make this an issue of what you do or don't like... I don't want spam or telemarketers calling either. However you do have to apply these things under the law and our constitution.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Blogs, photo albums - CampusFish
What time does the water show start?

Privacy manager, or call intercept is another way to eliminate calls from many telemarketers. It is a service offered by many phone companies that will answer calls that do not provide a minimum of an originating phone number along with the call. These calls are greeted by a message that asks the caller to leave their name and reason for calling. The caller is then placed on hold, and you are called. The system plays back the message, and you chose whether or not to take the call. It even has a "put me on your DNC list" option. I added this to my phone service about 9 months ago. I get less than 10% of the calls I used to. Most telemarketers use predictive dialers that code this as an answering machine and move on.

In Florida, Verizon charges about $4 for the service, however, you must also have caller id, another $3.

------------------
". . . don't you know baby that life is a scream!" - Gordon Gano
*** This post was edited by CoasterDad64 9/26/2003 7:32:32 PM ***

You Can All Thank Alexander Graham Bell For This Issue...

The premise behind the Do-Not-Call List is to simply prevent telemarketers from calling you during dinner. (Well, in addition to making them stop calling you period.)

Believe, my parents jumped at the chance to register on the Don't Call List (or DCL - in my lazy shorthand). But believe it or not, there's a loophole: any affiliate of a company is still allowed to call you. Companies nowadays seem to coming up with all of "affiliates" it seems. In general, the list works, but I've noticed that more and more "affiliate" companies have been calling me lately. And ALL those affiliates seem to call me during dinner!

Anyway. In my opinion, telemarketers do have a right to peddle their services and goods over the phone, just don't do it during dinner! If i request a company to take my name off their call list, then i expect them to respectfully do so. Some companies are known to not do that and risk the consequences. How do you know? You get a call from them again.

I'm personally not too sure how this DCL is gonna work, especially since the Feds can't make up their minds on how to makle the thing work in the first place! My solution to this issue is called an answering machine. It may not be the greatest solution, but it works. Caller ID and other related services work, too.

But keep in mind, i don't think we'll ever 100% eliminate the telemarketer. Even if we did, just think of where they'll go instead: Spam, e-mail. "Phone-Spam" - text message ads that are sent over web-phones. If we totally eliminate one avenue for companies to get their ads to the public, there's a real good chance that companies will simply turn to another means to achieve the same ends. and that will only result in more unwanted ads and stuff.

------------------------------------------------

Commercials are good for one thing: Getting your favorite snacks before the movie ocmes back on!

I've found that the words '****. YOU.' work pretty well on telemarketers too.

------------------
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!

If you have love for Top Thrill Dragster, copy this and put it in your signature.

1) I am a strong advocate for the right to free speech. That includes speech that I do not agree with.

2) Harassing people with numerous phone calls every evening invading their privacy is not free speech. It is the same as beating down their door. This is not protected by the first amendement. The courts seem to agreee with this.

3) I am required to have a phone. I'm also required to answer it. My job requires it, since I'm on call 24-7. If you think your job doesn't require you to have a phone, just try to get a job without having one. Those involved in trying to get jobs for the homeless find that one of the biggest barriers is that they don't have a phone number.

4) The latest ridiculous court ruling in this case says that the law is restriction of freedom of speech because it makes different rules for different groups. I could only see this as an unconstitutional restriction of freedom of speech if it were based on political view point. IE. The Republicans and Democrats can call you, but the Green Party or the American Nazi party can't.

5) The individual court rulings coming in now probably don't reflect what general legal opinion on this issue is. The telemarketers are carefully shopping for judges who they think will side with them, then filing suit in those courts. This is more of a delaying action than anything else. The decisions will almost certainly be overthrown on apppeal.

6) Harrassing phone calls are no more a legitimate exercise of free speech than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre.

My last three employers have not had my home phone. If you want to get into privacy issues, go down that road.

You're saying you believe in free speech even if you don't agree with it, then you say it should only apply if it's political speech. That's precisely why the list was struck down in the first place... it's not the governments place to say what's good and bad.

And the decisions won't be overthrown on appeal. This is very basic law here. It doesn't get any more fundamental than when it concerns the Constitution. I don't understand why everyone seems to make it such an emotional issue.

There are two actions that can be taken to enforce this list legally. The first is to require that all telemarketers, regardless of if they're commercial, non-profit or otherwise, be prohibited from calling numbers on the list. The second is to amend the Constitution, which I think we can all agree would be incredibly stupid.

It's not any more complicated than that, and it's the reason that the court's opinion was so short.

------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
Blogs, photo albums - CampusFish
What time does the water show start?