FTC to offer new limits on telemarketers

[Sir Fredrick]

<< Or suing the phone companies might work as well. Either way, it's between you and the phone comany. The feds have no constitutional power to regulate this. >>




Suing the phone companies for what? If they're not breaking any laws, I have no ground to stand on. If the feds have no power to regulate this, they also have no power to regulate radio stations, and yet they do that too.
Technically it is unconstitutional for them to require you to have a drivers license in order to drive, it is unconstitutional for them to have emissions standards. And yet they do anyway, and we tolerate these things because we feel they enhance our way or life, or whatever.

 

[Jzero]

<< Yes. It's an issue to ba taken up with your phone company (force them through consumer action to unlist numbers), and in civil suits with the telemarketers. You're punishing all for the bad actions of the few if you pass an arbitray law that affects all marketers. >>


I've ne'er seen a "good action" from a telemarketer...also, it's just too hard and costly for an individual to wage a legal battle against how many telemarketing companies. The other problem is that there are too many people who are apathetic about it. Quite frankly, I'm not going to go out of my way to stop nuisance telemarketers, but if the government is going to put a stop to the annoyance I shall not say nay.



<< Why do they feel that they must be taken care of, instead of taking care of things for themselves? >>


If a vast majority of the population is in favor of regulating the telemarketers, why make every single person do the legwork?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Yes. It's an issue to ba taken up with your phone company (force them through consumer action to unlist numbers), and in civil suits with the telemarketers. You're punishing all for the bad actions of the few if you pass an arbitray law that affects all marketers. >>


I've ne'er seen a "good action" from a telemarketer...also, it's just too hard and costly for an individual to wage a legal battle against how many telemarketing companies. The other problem is that there are too many people who are apathetic about it. Quite frankly, I'm not going to go out of my way to stop nuisance telemarketers, but if the government is going to put a stop to the annoyance I shall not say nay.



<< Why do they feel that they must be taken care of, instead of taking care of things for themselves? >>


If a vast majority of the population is in favor of regulating the telemarketers, why make every single person do the legwork? >>



Class action lawsuits. Little legwark for consumers, but big results when dealing with large companies.

And you do the leg work, because you're a free person with responsibility for your own problems. The more responsibility you give the government, the less free you are.

And vast majorities cannot grant the government powers it does not constitutionally have without amending the constitution.

 

[Jzero]

<< Technically it is unconstitutional for them to require you to have a drivers license in order to drive, it is unconstitutional for them to have emissions standards. And yet they do anyway, and we tolerate these things because we feel they enhance our way or life, or whatever. >>


Aaactually, drivers licenses and vehicle registrations are state laws. There is no federal law about it.
Federal emissions standards are standards and not laws. They can try to force compliance with them through stopping funding or giving a bad name or what not, but it's not actually a law. You can't be federally prosecuted for yanking the cat converter out your car, but you can be prosecuted by the state. The gov't can try and convince the states to adopt the standards by refusing funding if they don't or offering a bonus if they do...but there's no real law.
That's why when there was a nat'l speed limit of 55, for instance, some places still had higher limits--they decided tat the benefits of a higher speed limit were worth more than the funding they would have received from the gov't for adopting the limit.

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Or suing the phone companies might work as well. Either way, it's between you and the phone comany. The feds have no constitutional power to regulate this. >>




Suing the phone companies for what? If they're not breaking any laws, I have no ground to stand on. If the feds have no power to regulate this, they also have no power to regulate radio stations, and yet they do that too.
Technically it is unconstitutional for them to require you to have a drivers license in order to drive, it is unconstitutional for them to have emissions standards. And yet they do anyway, and we tolerate these things because we feel they enhance our way or life, or whatever. >>



:::sigh:::

Drivers licenses are state issued, not federal. And the roads are state owned, therefore the right to drive on thim is granted by the owner of the roads. If you have a private road, you can drive on it all day long without a license.

That said, you CAN sue someone if they haven't broken a law. That's what civil court is for. If I accidentally bump your car in a parking lot, have I broken a law? No. But you can sue me for damages anyhow.

And I agree that the FCC is an unconstitutional lawmaking organization.

 

[Jzero]

<< [Class action lawsuits. Little legwark for consumers, but big results when dealing with large companies. >>


Get someone to start the lawsuit, and THEN get it to actually pass.



<< And you do the leg work, because you're a free person with responsibility for your own problems. >>


I have bigger fish to fry than some a55hole telemarketers.


<< The more responsibility you give the government, the less free you are. >>


Again, regulating telemarketers' abilities to bother people is hardly a freedom issue. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.


<< And vast majorities cannot grant the government powers it does not constitutionally have without amending the constitution. >>


OK, so if they were sponsoring an amendment to the constitution that specifically gives the gov't the right to put the kibosh on bad telemarketing practices, it'd be ok with you?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< [Class action lawsuits. Little legwark for consumers, but big results when dealing with large companies. >>


Get someone to start the lawsuit, and THEN get it to actually pass.



<< And you do the leg work, because you're a free person with responsibility for your own problems. >>


I have bigger fish to fry than some a55hole telemarketers.


<< The more responsibility you give the government, the less free you are. >>


Again, regulating telemarketers' abilities to bother people is hardly a freedom issue. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.


<< And vast majorities cannot grant the government powers it does not constitutionally have without amending the constitution. >>


OK, so if they were sponsoring an amendment to the constitution that specifically gives the gov't the right to put the kibosh on bad telemarketing practices, it'd be ok with you? >>



Well, not really. I wouldn't agree with the amendment, but I wouldn't argue that the government has no power to regulate or limit them anymore.

I'm against any further restriction of freedom. In fact, I'm for repealing much of the restrictions that exist, save for causing harm to others.

 

[Jzero]

<< And I agree that the FCC is an unconstitutional lawmaking organization. >>


There's a whole other can of worms

 

[gopunk]

amused one - my apologies, i guess you were right.

however, i doubt telemarketing was what the framers of the constitution had in mind. unfortunate. thank god i live in a state that's better than average about these things (washington), as we already have anti-spam laws.

 

[Linflas]

Amusedone is right on target with what he has said in this thread. Those of you that do not believe in the slippery slope would do well to take a peek at this thread. Back when the government started treating the tobacco companies like people selling an illegal product people joked about the topic of that thread being next. It is not looking so far fetched these days.

 

[Amused]

<< amused one - my apologies, i guess you were right.

however, i doubt telemarketing was what the framers of the constitution had in mind. unfortunate. thank god i live in a state that's better than average about these things (washington), as we already have anti-spam laws. >>



That's cool, gopunk. Thanks for being a man about it. I apologize if I was insulting in my previous posts.

As for states limiting spam and telemarketing, that's wholly up to your state Constitution. Though, as I told Jzero, I'd disagree with any such law on moral grounds, but could not argue against them on legal or Constitutional grounds.

 

[Sir Fredrick]

<< :::sigh:::

Drivers licenses are state issued, not federal. >>



That could change with national IDs, unfortunately.



<< And the roads are state owned, therefore the right to drive on thim is granted by the owner of the roads. If you have a private road, you can drive on it all day long without a license. >>



Isn't the right to free travel one that is protected by the constitution? Members of the Michigan Militia seem to think so, and the courts have agreed with them thus far. Members have been arrested for driving without a license, but they always win in court.
Anyway, state or national, the laws are unconstitutional, but would you like to do away with them?



<< That said, you CAN sue someone if they haven't broken a law. That's what civil court is for. If I accidentally bump your car in a parking lot, have I broken a law? No. But you can sue me for damages anyhow. >>



The telcos can argue that regulating telemarketers isn't their responsibility, or that they do not have the means to control them, in fact telemarketers could probably sue them for blocking access. Further, I can't hold my local telco responsible for calls made from another state can I? What do you think the chances are that a class action law suit would win?



<< And I agree that the FCC is an unconstitutional lawmaking organization. >>



at least we agree on some things

 

[Amused]

<<

<< And I agree that the FCC is an unconstitutional lawmaking organization. >>


There's a whole other can of worms >>



Ain't that a fact

 

[Jzero]

<< I apologize if I was insulting in my previous posts. >>


No way. This is the least insulting debate I've ever heard.
Personally I disagree that original intent is so clear-cut, nor is it the only factor in determining the scope of the constitution, but you present a strong argument and don't have the knowledge or the time to go read up, so you da man on that one.


<< Isn't the right to free travel one that is protected by the constitution? Members of the Michigan Militia seem to think so, and the courts have agreed with them thus far. Members have been arrested for driving without a license, but they always win in court.
Anyway, state or national, the laws are unconstitutional, but would you like to do away with them? >>


I never heard that about the michigan militia. They have gotten off for not having licenses based on a claim that laws requiring licenses are unconstitutional?
Anyway, for drivers' licenses while I think it's rather invasive, it's something of a necessary evil to at least TRY and make sure everyone at least knows how to drive. This is a matter of personal safety.
But like the FCC, it's another can of worms...I disagree with both, but without them, there would be an all-out free-for-all. There has to be some regulation...otherwise the roadways would be a mess and people would hog up airwaves...

 

[gopunk]

the fcc gets away with a lot of the things it does because the courts have found radio and other "wave" type stuff to fall under inter-state commerce, since waves are not bound by any state lines.

 

[Linflas]

I have no problem with the FCC allocating spectrum and ensuring that broadcasters stay within their assigned frequencies. Absent this function we would have telecommunications chaos. I do not understand by what authority they regulate broadcast content or any non over the air broadcast activity ie. TV delivered via cable, POTS etc..

 

[Jzero]

<< TV delivered via cable >>


I dunno, but when I look at the activities of the COMmunist Ministry of BroadCAST, they haven't done a very good job when it comes to CATV

 

[RossMAN]

I've had an idiot from a company call me 3 times, each time I told him I am not inerested and to please place me on their DO NOT CALL list.

Is there anything else I can do?

 

[Amused]

<< the fcc gets away with a lot of the things it does because the courts have found radio and other "wave" type stuff to fall under inter-state commerce, since waves are not bound by any state lines. >>



Hot damn, my respect for you just bumped up a few more notches, gopunk

Yes, that can be true and is a damn good point (I was waiting for someone to bring up the interstate commerce clause of Article 1 section 8), but what about broadcasts so weak thay cannot cross state lines?

 

[gopunk]

Hot damn, my respect for you just bumped up a few more notches, gopunk

just call me mr. popular

Yes, that can be true and is a damn good point (I was waiting for someone to bring up the interstate commerce clause of Article 1 section 8), but what about broadcasts so weak thay cannot cross state lines?

that's a good question, i think i asked about it a few months ago here, but i'm not sure if anybody came up with an answer.

 

[gopunk]

bwhaha, i just went and looked for the thread, and guess who i was talking to in that thread, amusedone?

the other point we were talking about was that non-profit radio stations don't qualify as commerce, much less interstate commerce.

 

[StandardCell]

Why don't they make it law that telemarketers must have the letters "TM" in front of the caller ID name, and MUST transmit caller ID information to the intended recipient. In conjunction, telephone companies could offer for a very very nominal fee (say $0.35 per month) blocking of all numbers starting in "TM" on the phone, in conjunction with a national do-not-call registry?

 

[Amused]

<< bwhaha, i just went and looked for the thread, and guess who i was talking to in that thread, amusedone?

the other point we were talking about was that non-profit radio stations don't qualify as commerce, much less interstate commerce. >>



That was YOU?

Just think. In a few more years we can start hiding our own Easter eggs

 

[JediJeb]

<<

<< 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. >>



If this is right then there shouldn't be a law restricting my freedom to send a spamer a destructive virus, I mean, turn about is fair play. Same is true for telemarketers, why are they allowed to have their number blocked on caller ID, I should be able to call them back and annoy them like they annoy me. ( Sorry, just been interrupted too many times tonight by spam and telemarketers )

 

[Lithium381]

<< 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? >>



nope, you're not the only one....heh i saw that on TV a while ago, pissed me off, we could all just call the DMA and just try and sell them all our old computer junk, tie up their phone lines, and they might see how annoying it is to waste your time on the phone for things that really don't appeal do you, when you have better things to be doing...buahaha