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.
And my heart sing.
Then we have the yo-yo customer who says or thinks they are on the list and complains. What happens then? Is the complaint dropped or followed through on anyway?
I'm not a telemarketer, but just the thought of what a telemarketer will have to go through just to stay in business makes my head swim.
You get the feeling that they really want to put telemarketers out of business, but know that they can't do that legally, so they are going to regulate them to death instead.
****
Cry me a river.
What about the experienced electrician who must now take a test, pay for a license, go through continuing education classes, take out permits, etc? All this because a body of voters determined that it was in the public's interest to do so.
Or the funeral director who must now install ventihaltion systems in embalming rooms and go through OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens training? All this because a body of voters determined that it was in the public's interest to do so.
Look, all businesses are subject to regulation and impositions on their business.
But the past history of excesses within the telemarketing industry as a whole has invited this intrusion into their businesses.
And if this "industry" completely disappeared, would anyone really miss it?
In other words, you are suggesting that every person in the US go through all this effort, simply because you are personally unwilling to expend a similar amount of effort to scrub your own calling list against the FTC's DNC list.
Posting guidelines prevent me from stating what I think of your suggestions.
So, if I have a difference of opinion, very detailed on the subject matter, and you disagree, you'd like to threaten me or verbally abuse me? Does that seem rational to you?
You have no legal right to avoid being annoyed or inconvenienced. Full implementation of the dnc list would more than annoy or inconvenience you. Take a little trip with your imagination on the cause and effect of the legislation.
Not to disagree with the points in your post, but the free market wasn't doing a good job of advertising these features. All I know about and have is caller ID and mine doesn't distinguish between telemarketers and friends who have unlisted numbers or cell phones. So I end up letting my phone ring through to the voice mail all the time. Sometimes friends are calling who want to do something, but they assume I'm not home if the voice mail picks up and they don't leave a message. It's a royal pain in the neck.
I've already demonstrated that your technical objections (regarding filtering call lists against the DNC list) are bogus.
You simply don't want to expend the effort, and instead insist that everyone else expend more effort to avoid you.
That may be rational in your little world, but in mine it is not just inconsiderate -- it's theft of my time and everyone else's.
You have no legal right to avoid being annoyed or inconvenienced.
So, that makes it OK, in your book? And you wonder why most people think that telemarketers are pond scum?
Full implementation of the dnc list would more than annoy or inconvenience you. Take a little trip with your imagination on the cause and effect of the legislation.
Whine, bitch, and moan all you want, but a full implementation of the DNC list will have no effect on me. I have more consideration for my potential customers than that.
What it will do is give me back the time I spend answering the phone and telling a persistent telemarketer repeatedly that I am not interested. I won't have to play whack-a-mole and do it again every time a boiler room operation goes through a "reorganization" under a different name.
If you find yourself unemployed, that's your problem. The rest of the US does not owe you a living.
I work out of my home, and these measures aren't feasible. Caller ID isn't reliable, and screening calls results in another round of phone tag.
You make a good point. You'd think that the telemarketers would be happy now that they have a list of people who actually WANT to be called (by default, that is). They won't have to deal with whistles being blown in their ears and having people hang up on them.
The major wirehouses, while they will not admit it, would need to completely change the way they do business. Out of the top floor, down to the main street, fire 70% of their staff, drastically increase print and radio ads.
And if you don't care about the financial markets, brokers, etc., then I'd ask you just who the heck is going to raise capital for our free world?
While you get angry with me, you don't seem to understand my point, a valid argument from the other side. The govt shouldn't be in the business of regulating phone calls, the legislation was poorly drafted, and nearly impossible to comply with. Additionally, it would have a very negative effect on our economy. You, the phone user, have the power to eliminate 98% of what it is that is bothering you. Isn't that enough control?
Ohmigod. You're exactly right........
Gacy is my hero. What a man, a plan, and a clown suit can accomplish.... *sigh*.....
The list is not a real-time thing. It is only published at certain times and the telemarketers will have some time from the publication date to update their systems. For example: the first batch of numbers was published Sept. 1 but do not go into effect until Oct. 1.
Geez - maybe that will CREATE jobs in THAT industry, perhaps?!
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.