FTC to offer new limits on telemarketers

[gopunk]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134394065_ndig22.html




If approved, the rules could be in place in a year. But first they would be subject to public comment.

"We think it is an inappropriate role for the government to spend taxpayer dollars to limit communication to people," said H. Robert Wientzen, president and chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association.

"We think that communication is protected by the constitutional right to free speech."




am i the only one who wants to b!tchslap this mofo?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< "We think that communication is protected by the constitutional right to free speech." >>



How about the right to be leaved alone in your own home??

Only thing that annoy me more than telemarketers is spammers :disgust:...

 

[yakko]

The only rules that I think need to be changed are:

1) Do not call before 9 am.
2) None of those damn machines calling. If it rings there had better be a person on the other end when I answer.

 

[Fausto]

IIRC, they can't currently call prior to 8am or after 9pm. I can't remember off the top of my head what the current deal with the auto-dialers is tho. They can't put this legislation through soon enough for me...I HATE telemarketers. They can have all the right to free speech they want, but I have the right not to be called five times a night while I'm trying to eat dinner dammit.

Fausto

 

[Sir Fredrick]

A national do not call list is a great start. Telemarketers should also be required to identify themselves as such at the very beginning of the call.

 

[isasir]

<< A national do not call list is a great start. Telemarketers should also be required to identify themselves as such at the very beginning of the call. >>



I've been on New York's Do Not Call list since it started. I think we maybe get like 1 call from telemarketers a week now (usually when no one's home). w00t.

 

[Amused]

<< http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134394065_ndig22.html




If approved, the rules could be in place in a year. But first they would be subject to public comment.

"We think it is an inappropriate role for the government to spend taxpayer dollars to limit communication to people," said H. Robert Wientzen, president and chief executive of the Direct Marketing Association.

"We think that communication is protected by the constitutional right to free speech."


am i the only one who wants to b!tchslap this mofo? >>



Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them.

 

[killface]

<<

<< A national do not call list is a great start. Telemarketers should also be required to identify themselves as such at the very beginning of the call. >>



I've been on New York's Do Not Call list since it started. I think we maybe get like 1 call from telemarketers a week now (usually when no one's home). w00t. >>


Yeah, that's the best. Takes like 10 seconds to fill out the web form (but 3 months for it to take effect). A national plan would be even better, I can't wait.

 

[Turbopit]

I think those "auto-dialers" are called a "Predictive" dialing system.

One thing you should always do when called is ask to speak to a supervisor and request a letter from the company stating that they have put you on their do not call list. Of course there are 1000's of companies, but it's a start. My wife has run a phone program for a couple university annual giving programs. She knows all the rules/laws because they have to follow the same rules as a "telemarketer". (she no longer does this, she's moved onto bigger gifts) I love it when a telemarketer calls, I immediatly put her on the phone.

One time a credit card company sent us a card after we told them not to. Oh boy you should have heard her because doing that is against the law.

 

[gopunk]

Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them.

because?

 

[bandXtrb]

NY Do not call List

 

[Fausto]

<< Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them. >>



Well, it's not like they'll stop calling and spamming if you ask really nicely, thus there must be laws. It's either that or they would be increasingly invasive in their efforts to get you to buy stuff. I don't see any other solution than laws. What solution(s) do you have in mind other than laws restricting unsolicited advertising?

Fausto

 

[Hossenfeffer]

The Direct Marketing Association's Home Page

DMA's advice on getting your name off lists

Contact the DMA

 

[kgraeme]

<< Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them. >>



Actually the law isn't directly against them. It does not outlaw telemarketers. It would only require them to comply with an individual's request to not be called. If the industry had regulated itself the government wouldn't be involved, but in the U.S. the government is (or is supposed to be) a representation of the people, and the people have spoken time and time again that they would like some relief from telemarketing calls.

If the government was directly banning telemarketers, I would agree with you. Even though I hate getting those calls.

 

[Amused]

<< Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them.

because? >>



Because lately, gopunk, it seems you think the only way to change something, is to take someone's freedom away.

Constiutionally, the government has no place restricting or regulating spam or telemarketers. And frankly, I'm weary of ANY law that restricts freedoms.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them. >>



Well, it's not like they'll stop calling and spamming if you ask really nicely, thus there must be laws. It's either that or they would be increasingly invasive in their efforts to get you to buy stuff. I don't see any other solution than laws. What solution(s) do you have in mind other than laws restricting unsolicited advertising?

Fausto >>



None. They are causing you no real harm. I get no telemarketing calls. Know why? My number is unlisted, and I never give it out.

Being annoyed is NOT a reason to restrict other's freedoms. What happens when something YOU do for a living annoys someone?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Well, the only thing that annoys me more than spam and telemarketers are those who wish to make laws against them. >>



Actually the law isn't directly against them. It does not outlaw telemarketers. It would only require them to comply with an individual's request to not be called. If the industry had regulated itself the government wouldn't be involved, but in the U.S. the government is (or is supposed to be) a representation of the people, and the people have spoken time and time again that they would like some relief from telemarketing calls.

If the government was directly banning telemarketers, I would agree with you. Even though I hate getting those calls. >>



For the most part, they already do. The very few telemarketing calls I got a few years ago stopped when I asked to be removed from their list.

I've lived in many states, and have never been bothered by telemarketers to any great extent. In fact, in the last ten years, I can count on my fingers and toes how many I've calls I've received. It's not hard to make them stop.

 

[Jzero]

<< And frankly, I'm weary of ANY law that restricts freedoms. >>


The catch is that your freedom to whatever should not exceed anyone else's freedom.
Why should telemarketers have the freedom to use my resources for the purposes of advertisement? Why should they have a right to use underhanded tactics like predictive dialing and caller ID blocking? What kind of freedom is it when you have to hide your telephone number from the people you WANT to be able to find it so you can hide from people you DON'T want?

As was said--the law isn't restricting telemarketers' rights to do what they do, it's just requiring them to use a little courtesy since they were unwilling to do it for themselves.
Junk mail is different--the sender pays for all the costs. If you don't want it you just throw it away.
Telemarketing is a little worse--you're paying for your phone service. What right do they have to use your resources for marketing you don't want?
Spam is the king because the recipient pays for nearly the entire cost. That's why Fax spam reaps such a high penalty ($500 per message).
Junk mail can do whatever.
Telemarketing and Spam advertise at a partial or total cost to the recipient, infringing on the recipient's freedom to use resources that he is paying for as he wishes. If you don't want the telephone line YOU are paying for to be used for advertising to you, you should have a cheap easy way to do so.
Whose freedom is more important? Some company that is too lazy to get out and do some real advertising, or an individual who is having his time, money and resources wasted against his wishes?
If the telemarketers won't regulate themselves, the governement will regulate for them. That's why we have a government.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< And frankly, I'm weary of ANY law that restricts freedoms. >>


The catch is that your freedom to whatever should not exceed anyone else's freedom.
Why should telemarketers have the freedom to use my resources for the purposes of advertisement? Why should they have a right to use underhanded tactics like predictive dialing and caller ID blocking? What kind of freedom is it when you have to hide your telephone number from the people you WANT to be able to find it so you can hide from people you DON'T want? >>



It costs you nothing to receive a call. Like I said, you do NOT have a constitutional right to be free from offense, or annoyance. Telemarketers are NOT "exceeding anyone else's freedom." Now, if this is happening on cell phone where you have to pay for minutes, you have a legitimate claim. But on land lines, receiving a call costs nothing.

They are simply approaching you with an offer. If you choose for your info to be public and accessible , than ANYONE can use it. Including people you don't much like.

YOU care for YOUR info because YOU are responsible for it. Freedom does NOT mean having a nannystate government restrict everyone else, so you don't have to care for yourself.

 

[Amused]

<< That's why we have a government. >>



Good gawd, I sometimes wonder if people have ever read the Constitution.

 

[Jzero]

<< It costs you nothing to receive a call. Like I said, you do NOT have a constitutional right to be free from offense, or annoyance. Telemarketers are NOT "exceeding anyone else's freedom." >>


That's like saying it costs me nothing to receive an e-mail.
And it's not correct. The service itself costs me, and as someone who is paying for that service, I have a right to be reasonably assured that it is used within my wishes. Furthermore, this is not a constitutional rights issue. Your first amendment rights exist to allow you to speak out against government and to be able to say what you please without fear of being prosecuted. Hiding behind the first amendment is a paltry attempt to justify a business that really shouldn't exist to begin with.


<< They are simply approaching you with an offer. If you choose for your info to be public and accessible , than ANYONE can use it. Including people you don't much like. >>


They are approaching me with an offer on MY time using MY resources. I can easily hang out a sign saying "no solicitors" that prevents people from approaching me with those kinds of offers.
Telemarketers don't offer the same ability.
They've been asked nicely by many and they don't comply. So screw them. This is about my freedom. I really could care less about crap businesses and so-called "charitable organizations."

 

[bandXtrb]

hmm both of you have good points ... Who should I believe?

 

[Jzero]

<< YOU care for YOUR info because YOU are responsible for it. Freedom does NOT mean having a nannystate government restrict everyone else, so you don't have to care for yourself. >>


And I care that MY info can be found in a directory by people who have legitimate reason to contact me without having to be badgered by morons trying to sell me crap that I have no use for.

Your constitutional right does NOT give you the right to stand outside my house and yell advertising slogans--I can call the cops and they'll drag you away. If you can't stand outside my house and do it, why should you be able to call my house and do it?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< YOU care for YOUR info because YOU are responsible for it. Freedom does NOT mean having a nannystate government restrict everyone else, so you don't have to care for yourself. >>


And I care that MY info can be found in a directory by people who have legitimate reason to contact me without having to be badgered by morons trying to sell me crap that I have no use for.

Your constitutional right does NOT give you the right to stand outside my house and yell advertising slogans--I can call the cops and they'll drag you away. If you can't stand outside my house and do it, why should you be able to call my house and do it? >>



Actually, I can stand on a public sidewalk and scream whatever I want.

 

[Jzero]

<<

<<

<< YOU care for YOUR info because YOU are responsible for it. Freedom does NOT mean having a nannystate government restrict everyone else, so you don't have to care for yourself. >>


And I care that MY info can be found in a directory by people who have legitimate reason to contact me without having to be badgered by morons trying to sell me crap that I have no use for.

Your constitutional right does NOT give you the right to stand outside my house and yell advertising slogans--I can call the cops and they'll drag you away. If you can't stand outside my house and do it, why should you be able to call my house and do it? >>



Actually, I can stand on a public sidewalk and scream whatever I want. >>


Yes, and the cops can come and tell you to move along AND you can be arrested. You can't be arrested based on the content of what you're screaming, but you can be arrested for disturbing the peace, loitering, trespassing, or whatever other ordinance you might be violating by doing so.