Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal court rules against FTC no-call list
CBS MarketWatch.com ^ | 9/24/2003 | William L. Watts

Posted on 09/24/2003 8:47:38 AM PDT by SierraWasp

11:29AM Federal court rules against FTC no-call list by William L. Watts

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- A federal judge in Oklahoma City ruled that the Federal Trade Commission didn't have authority to implement a popular do-not-call list shielding consumers from telemarketing calls, the Direct Marketing Association said. The court reportedly found that statutory jurisdiction for such a list rested with the Federal Communications Commission rather than the FTC. The DMA, a trade group representing telemarketers, brought the suit. In a statement, the organization said it "acknowledges the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preferences not to receive" telemarketing solicitations. The DMA said it would work with the FTC and the FCC to "evaluate the practical implications" of the judge's decision, which was issued Tuesday.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: donotcall; fcc; federales; ftc; telebastards; teleterrorists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-324 next last
To: Professional
Should a realtor that worked for you 4 years ago not be allowed to call you wondering if you'd consider a bigger home?

Yeah, that's kinda the idea.

How about the car dealership that sold you a car 6 years ago, wondering if you'd like to test the new model?

Especially him.

141 posted on 09/24/2003 10:32:50 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Professional
Simple. If they're internal support (i.e. you're both part of the same company), call away. If they're clients or vendors (with an ongoing business relationship that has been confirmed within the past 18 months), call away. If they're "prospects" (i.e. people whose phone numbers you dredged up someplace or other), check the number to see if it's on the DNC list -- if not, call, if so, don't call.
142 posted on 09/24/2003 10:33:29 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Professional
My point, and I'm not surprised folks disagree, is that govt had NO right to become the arbitrator of this.

Actually, they do. Please read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

The financial consequences of this thing actually having gone through would have been truly massive.

It will go through in one form or another.

It's a question of whether it goes through in the form of a national DNC list, or a nationwide vigilante movement that firebombs telemarketers.

Which one do YOU prefer?

If you don't want to be called, just do some fairly simple things and problem will be solved.

I did all those things, AT MY OWN F***ING EXPENSE, and the calls ended...for about a month.

And then the telemarketers modified their systems to defeat my countermeasures.

143 posted on 09/24/2003 10:33:34 AM PDT by Poohbah (Technical difficulties have temporarily interrupted this tagline. Please stand by.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Professional
Well, let's say you're a client of a brokerage firm. How am I supposed to stay in touch with you? Wouldn't it even be illegal for me to call and ask you? If you do business with phone company x, shouldn't they be able to call you and offer you new services, or discounts on calling plans that they know you'd benefit from?

Doesn't the present tense "are" as in "are a client" and "do" as in "do business" make contact perfectly legal, and well, expected? You have ONGOING business with your phone company - they send you a bill every month. If a brokerage firm sends you quarterly statements, you HAVE business with them. How could contact in such situations EVER be outside the boundaries of normal customer relations?

Does your particular business allow for a better example than the two above?

144 posted on 09/24/2003 10:33:56 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
It's a question of whether it goes through in the form of a national DNC list, or a nationwide vigilante movement that firebombs telemarketers.

LOL.

145 posted on 09/24/2003 10:35:04 AM PDT by NittanyLion (Go Tom Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
You need do nothing more than reference the index field. If a certain phone# is present both in your list and the DNC list, do not call it. Else, feel free to call.

Bill Gates has spoken! not

You didn't answer the question. What program can analyze that much data, with 100% certainty, in a reasonable time, for tremendous numbers of variables?

I do this professionally, data management for my sales. It is NOT simple, it is extremely difficult and very expensive. The govt wanted to charge all sorts of money for the lists too.

146 posted on 09/24/2003 10:35:12 AM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: jbstrick
The law should be enacted by CONGRESS or the States.

Do Not Call laws ought to be a state matter. That way, we can pass death penalty laws against telemarketers. The only question in my mind is whether the penalty should apply on the first conviction or the second.

147 posted on 09/24/2003 10:37:19 AM PDT by Tall_Texan (http://righteverytime1.blogspot.com - home to Tall_Texan's latest column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Professional
The govt wanted to charge all sorts of money for the lists too.

I hadn't heard that. How much?

148 posted on 09/24/2003 10:37:52 AM PDT by NittanyLion (Go Tom Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Professional
What part of NO SOLICITORS do you not understand?
149 posted on 09/24/2003 10:38:21 AM PDT by Tiki_Bar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Professional
The financial consequences of this thing actually having gone through would have been truly massive.

Let me get this straight....we would have been looking at a deflationary depression is telemarketers couldn't harass 50 million people in their own homes who wanted absolutely no part of what the telemarketers were selling?

And as for the welfare queens being put out of their telemarketing jobs, maybe they can move to India where many of these calls originate and are routed through switches in New York.

150 posted on 09/24/2003 10:39:30 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Professional
Wouldn't it even be illegal for me to call and ask you?

No, because that wouldn't be an "unsolicited" call by definition. Not only that, if the firm were conscientious, they would ask their client's permission to telephone them on on occasion. Most, if not all, of the clients would certainly welcome those calls and grant permission.

If you do business with phone company x, shouldn't they be able to call you and offer you new services, or discounts on calling plans that they know you'd benefit from?

If, and only if, I gave them permission to do so. If you sign up for something via a website, many times, you are asked if you would like to be contacted and kept abreast of new developments or discounts that they feel you may be interested in. This is no different.

Involving the govt into this was a ploy to gain far reaching power that would have dramatically effected American business.

Involving the government is the only way - it appears - to prevent these morons from infringing on individuals' privacy. The power should reside with the consumer, not the vendor. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you shouldn't be in business.

You are ABSOLUTELY kidding yourself if you thought that this wouldn't wind up in STAGGERING unemployment numbers.

I asked before, and I ask again, where is the empirical evidence that shows the "staggering" unemployment that would result from this? And, please, make your citation from an independant source - any figures the telemarketing industry organs cite are suspect at best.

151 posted on 09/24/2003 10:40:09 AM PDT by mhking (Don't mess in the affairs of dragons; For you are crunchy, and taste great with ketchup...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Professional
If telemarketing doesn't work, then folks wouldn't do it.

If burglary didn't work, there would be no burglars.

People like being offered products, services, solutions, that they need.

Let's cut to the chase and reveal the dirty little secret of telemarketing.

There are three types of people:

1. People who already want what you have to sell.

2a. People who don't want what you have to sell, and have no problem with saying "no".

2b. People who don't want what you have to sell, but are not fully in possession of their mental and emotional faculties.

Telemarketing is not needed to reach Group 1; they'll find you on their own.

Telemarketing does not work on Group 2a; they'll hang up on you (with or without commentary on your ancestry, anatomy, spiritual destination, etc).

That leaves us with Group 2b as the telemarketer's bread and butter. The stereotypical case of old Aunt Moira, not quite as sharp as she used to be and who finds it difficult to hang up on the only living things who say anything but "meow" to her, is the foundation upon which the business rests.

152 posted on 09/24/2003 10:40:12 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski
He also suggested sending your junk mail back to the company that sent it to you in the postage paid envelope provided.

I have done that before. I sent several other pieces of junk mail back in one prepaid envelope. Bet there have been several times the return postage was more than the actual postage on the enveolpe.

Just imangine having to pay for your returned junk mail, plus several other junk mail letters!

153 posted on 09/24/2003 10:40:50 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (I am ashamed the dixie chicks are from Texas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Professional
What program can analyze that much data, with 100% certainty, in a reasonable time, for tremendous numbers of variables?

Quit blowing smoke at us; some FReepers build and program computers for a living.

There is no "tremendous number of variables". A certain ten-digit number (the one you intend to call at the moment) is either on the list, or it is not.

154 posted on 09/24/2003 10:41:47 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
Trap a skunk, and release it in your neighbor's back yard ;-).

Then you have a noisy mess that smells bad too. Buy one of those untra-sonic dog training remotes and everytime the bastard barks, turn it on. Dogs aren't very bright, but they understand conditioned response very well.

155 posted on 09/24/2003 10:41:50 AM PDT by Orangedog (Soccer-Moms are the biggest threat to your freedoms and the republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
There was an annual fee.

"Data for up to five area codes will be available for free. Beyond that, there is an annual fee of $25 per area code of data, with a maximum annual fee of $7,375 for the entire U.S. database"

More info can be found here
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncbizalrt.htm
156 posted on 09/24/2003 10:42:36 AM PDT by Kimlee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I did all those things, AT MY OWN F***ING EXPENSE, and the calls ended...for about a month.
And then the telemarketers modified their systems to defeat my countermeasures.

Yes, and these modifications ought to be treated as legally equivalent to lock-picking for the purpose of trespassing.

Spam should be treated the same way -- send all the e-mail you like, but do not use any techniques that can be definitively identified as measures designed to defeat anti-spam filters. That would end the problem without even remotely infringing on free speech.

157 posted on 09/24/2003 10:44:56 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Professional
My point, and I'm not surprised folks disagree, is that govt had NO right to become the arbitrator of this.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not in 100% agreement, but you have valid concerns and well reasoned arguements.

What gets me is that some of the same names I see here wanting their private property to be protected from annoyance by the government are among the same that demand being protected from other annoyances on someone else's private property, because they feel their rights trump that of the property owner once they enter that property. (i.e. smoking bans)

Having done a stint as a telemarketer for a brokerage firm 20 years ago, I can atest it is not a fun job and not one that I care to do again. Even during election seasons, I will not participate in get out the vote phone banks - I will do anything BUT.

158 posted on 09/24/2003 10:45:22 AM PDT by Gabz (Smoke-gnatzies - small minds buzzing in your business - SWAT'EM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Kimlee; Professional
Thanks. Clearly, forcing telemarketers to pay up to $7300 just for the information they need to comply with a law is improper.
159 posted on 09/24/2003 10:45:28 AM PDT by NittanyLion (Go Tom Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: TontoKowalski
Like you, I don't need the feds to take care of me, but if they provide me a little bit of peace and quiet with my family at the end of a long day at work, then it's one of the few useful things they've done for me lately.

Not picking on you, but ...

It's the principle of the thing. We pay for that "service." I don't like telemarketing calls, but I can handle the disruption without "help" from the FedGov. Now the impetus to have FedGove help the masses, snowballs. The FedGov Court says "no." The FedGove FTC says "pick me." The FedGov FCC says "pick me." These folks are pulling down some serious jack, some of them as individuals, and how many people were involved in preparation of the system, etc.? IMO, it (the FedGov leech machine) needs to get a life outside of meddling with trivial details of mine, even if the meddling improves my lot. Get 'em the hell OUT.

P.S. I signed up. So call me a hypocrit if you want.

160 posted on 09/24/2003 10:45:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-324 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson