Do-Not-Call Rules to Include Unsolicited Faxes

The Washington Times ^ | August 15, 2003 | Chris Baker

[hardhead]

A federal rule that takes effect Aug. 25 will make it illegal to fax unsolicited advertisements to homes and businesses. But several trade groups and associations have asked for a delay, arguing it will have unintended consequences. Part of the do-not-call regulations the government introduced this summer to stifle telemarketers, the rule repeals an exception to a 1991 law that bans unsolicited faxes. The 1991 rules allow recipients to sue senders for $500 for each unwanted fax received and allow the Federal Communications Commission to fine violators as much as $11,000 per unwanted fax. An exception applied if the sender had an "existing business relationship" with the recipient. That exception is being eliminated. "This is an amazing issue in that virtually no one in the country is aware of it. It was sort of buried in the do-not-call regulations, and it didn't really get the attention it deserved," said Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer in the District who advises trade associations. If the rule takes effect as planned, it will be illegal to fax virtually any kind of promotional material without obtaining written permission of the recipient. Written permission would need to be obtained just once, according to the rule. The rule could have unintended consequences for nonprofits, says Ellen Dunham Bryant, labor and employment counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of several trade groups that asked the FCC last week to delay and reconsider implementation of the rule. "It's quite broad. It will affect a lot of small businesses and associations who have everyday fax contact with their customers and members," Ms. Bryant said. For example, the chamber would be prevented from sending faxes to its members promoting seminars, meetings and any other materials that may be deemed promotional unless it had the written permission of each recipient, she said. Purely informational documents, such as press releases, would be permitted, the FCC says. It would be "very onerous" to obtain written permission from each chamber member before sending it a fax, Ms. Bryant said. The chamber represents about 3 million businesses. Dan Rumelt, an FCC spokesman, said he did not know if or when the agency will respond to the request for the delay. The new rule will make it easier for recipients to file lawsuits against fax senders, Mr. Tenenbaum and others predicted. An FCC spokesman was unable to say how many companies the agency has cited or fined since the 1991 rule went into effect. According to the agency's Web site, it has cited 17 companies this year and fined three businesses since 2001. The fines include a $5.4 million penalty in August 2002 against Fax.com Inc., an Aliso Viejo, Calif., "fax broadcaster" that recently was sued by the California attorney general for potentially violating the federal rules on unsolicited faxes. A July report from the FCC said the new rule is designed to protect consumers who feel besieged by unsolicited faxes. "Consumers emphasize that the burden of receiving unsolicited faxes is not just limited to the cost of paper and toner, but includes the time spent reading and disposing of faxes, the time the machine is printing an advertisement and is not operational for other purposes, and the intrusiveness of faxes transmitted at inconvenient times, including in the middle of the night," the report stated. The rule will have "a tremendous impact" on companies that specialize in marketing products via faxes, said Jim Conway, vice president of government relations for the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group that represents telemarketers, direct mailers, catalog companies and other marketing businesses. The association has not determined what the financial effect will be on the industry, Mr. Conway said. Companies that rely solely on faxing could be driven out of business, he said. "You can't fax your customers anymore. That's the part they're having a hard time understanding," Mr. Conway said. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, filed a $15 million consumer-protection lawsuit against Fax.com last month, saying it violated the 1991 federal law prohibiting unwanted faxes. Counting the cost of paper and toner, Mr. Lockyer said, so-called junk fax recipients pay 2 cents per page. The price adds up to millions of dollars each year, he said.

[hardhead]

Doesn't it get your blood boiling to be awakened at 3 a.m. with an unsolicited fax advertising a trip to Jamaica? Always - unidentified! How about a quote for an obscure stock?

[Gorzaloon]

The rule will have "a tremendous impact" on companies that specialize in marketing products via faxes, said Jim Conway, vice president of government relations for the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group that represents telemarketers, direct mailers, catalog companies and other marketing businesses.

That's the idea, you spamming, congress-bribing piece of sh&t.

Die Soon.

[aruanan]

Now if we can only get this to include unsolicited email promising me a thicker, longer, harder penis or barnyard fun or longevity through human growth hormone or the stimulation of my pituitary gland to produce more human growth hormone or generic Viagra or LOW LOW LOW loan rates or help with my septic tank troubles etc., we'd really be on to something. If we could get a law that would prevent the Post Office from using first class postage to subsidize bulk mail, we'd also have something great.

[FixitGuy]

I am on the "Do Not Call" list! I swear, the calls have DOUBLED!

You don't suppose some gummint plo-yee SOLD the list????

No not in America!

[pointsal]

ping....
The DMA folks should be skinned alive...nightly at 3:00am.

[Voltage]

Wouldn't just banning advertising altogether be the best solution? Then nobody would be bothered. Life would be wonderful. Bliss!

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

In addition to the do-not-call list we have added Bell South's "Privacy Director". I bet its available from your local phone company too. It came to us as a free 6 month trial as part of a package, but is promised to cost only a couple of dollars a month when they begin charging.

It has blocked most all of the telemarketing calls coming thru. What it does is take any call that is not identifying itself thru caller ID (most telemarketing calls are unidentified calls), and it tells that caller that your privacy director is blocking the call. The caller does have the option to hit the # key, I think it is, and to identify themselves. In that case the call will ring again to you and show the callers ID. (telemarketers and computer generated calls will not do so and remained blocked).

Finally we have peaceful evenings with almost NO telemarketing calls.

[Voltage]

The technological solution you describe is excellent. It works and it honors freedom. No jack booted gestopo required!

Similarily e-mail spam can be completely controled, I am doing it with SpamPal.org plus Mozilla mail. 98% effetive. The 2% that gets thru is insignificant.

We don't need government to make our lives carefree.

[BlazingArizona]

I am on the "Do Not Call" list! I swear, the calls have DOUBLED!

I'm seeing this too. Ten and twenty calls some days, and a stack of messages on my machine whenever I leave the house. Since the Do not Call list does not take effect until October, I think that telemarketers are making the most of their last weeks of existence by blowing out the phones.

[cubreporter]

We are on the state and national do not call list. We have not had any bothersome calls at all. However, we DO have caller ID and we wait to see who is calling before we pick up the receiver. If we DO get a call that we do not want we simply hang up period.

As for unwanted faxes...they don't bother us as we only get one or two a year but ... if they are waking you up at night you should shut the door to your computer room OR cover your fax with a thick towel or blanket at night in order to muffle the sound or simply unplug it.

In earlier years when we would have an unwanted call like that we would be polite and tell them sorry we are not interested at this time, etc. They would persist and so the only remedy was to just hang up on them. I am polite but when I say "not interested" it means just that and therefore when they persisted I likened it to someone trying to force their way into our house or lives. That we would not tolerate so we cut it off by hanging up.
You are in control.

Now, if they could do something about the pop ups. The ads are one thing but when you get these stupid women advertising their websites...well, that's offensive.

Can't believe the number of people so obsessed by creating websites and webcams asking everyone else to view them. Sick in my mind. I wonder if they do anything else in their lives but this? They can do it all they want. But, I am tired of being interrupted when working on the computer by people I have no interest in whatsoever that have to sell themselves. I say take it somewhere else and I hope something will be done about that too.

[Always Right]

are there any federal rules against unformatted posts....

[hardhead]

There's more than meets the eye on this subject. I happen to live in the sticks (wild Wyoming) and sure nuff I have caller ID but it does not block 'Out of Area' calls. An out-of-area call could be from an adjoining state. Some baby bells offer what they call 100% caller ID, or enhanced ID. Qwest has not seen enough profit margin to offer it to ALL its customers - us. For instance, a few days ago I received a fax from a 'Stock Quote' activity - the fax did not identify any number or any address to get in touch with them. It did, however, provide a toll-free number to call and automatically put in your number to be removed. I did not do this because it just verifies that mine was a legitimate fax number. Its sort of like what we are told in dealing with spammers; never reply to them! So, I took the toll-free number that they provided to de-list and every couple of hours for three days called it and input their own number. I'm sure it doesn't help a thing but it felt good. I did do a search on Google with for the toll-free number they provided and, sure enough, it was tied to this Fax.com which has been adjudged. I go to Fax.com's web page and, naturally, they do not identify their fax spam clients, just the fact that they were paid by a third party to do the faxing. Scumbag sumbidges. One little short note regarding e-mail spam. I was receiving an average of 15 to 20 a day but that has been cut down to maybe 1 or 2 a day. My ISP recommended I sign on to Spam Cop, which I did. It took some time reporting each spam but the traffic has fallen dramatically. I would recommend Spam Cop for anyone who is bothered excessively by spam. Back to telephone calls - I received a call once from the sales department of a newspaper in Denver wanting me to subscribe to the newspaper. I did not politely tell them, but forcefully told them (Denver is 500 miles away) that I had no interest in their muggings, burglaries, home invasions, and crime, that we would take care of that in our own way where I live. I then asked the guy if he understood and I wanted to make sure he was not a complete ******* idiot. Silence. Anwser my damn question, are you an idiot? He hung up. I don't normally lose my cool with these jokers but this guy was talking over top of my conversation just like a democreep.

[FixitGuy]

I use "Anonymous Call Block", *77 = on and *87 = off. Systems are different and some do not allow other features to work properly.

Seem to recall a problem with "Call Forwarding"

[cubreporter]

Did you ever see the Seinfeld episode where someone calls Jerry and he says he is busy but could he take his home number and call him later? The salesperson said no. Then Jerry said something like Oh, so you dont' like getting calls at night either. Something along those lines. It was a direct slam to telemarketers. It was GOOD!

[hardhead]

Sorry, our house is a TV-Free zone and have not caught any TV episodes. Who is Seinfeld and who is Jerry? ;o)>

[gitmo]

There was an interview on the radio the other night. Some guy went to a TeleMarketers' convention and 'claimed' one of the name tags. He got the list of attendees, and called each and every one of them at their hotel rooms at 3:00 AM, asking what they think of telemarketing calls. He recorded their outrage and is selling CDs of the calls.

[hardhead]

Now that is the BEST one I have heard in ages. I nominate it for the TELESCUM award!

[N. Theknow]

The ones that do not have a reply FAX number are annoying. The ones that do have a return FAX number I send a sheet of black paper with very small white font that reads "No thank you."

Some of the others have a number you can call to "opt off" their FAX list. Don't bother they don't pay attention.

Others have a number you can call. I call and ask for a FAx number to send my information to them and then send the black FAX.

Stock tips are a special peeve. I get the name of the company and call them directly and speak to corporate relations and let them know what a bunch of worthless clods both they and the company touting their stock are.

I then clip the wings off flies and have a great day all round.

[Voltage]

cubreporter says....Now, if they could do something about the pop ups..

If you were using Mozilla as your browser you would have no pop ups!. One can only guess as to why Internet Explorer doesn't block popups. Spam, Popup's all solved using free software..SpamPal.org and Mozilla.org.

Time to apply the technological solutions that are available and entirely free!

[cubreporter]

Hey, thank you for that information. We wil have to check it out. We're technologicaly challenged. :)