No it wouldn't. There are exceptions for existing business relationships -- if they are current clients, you are free to call them on matters related to that business. Now, if you were calling them up to offer them a magazine subscription that a subsidary publishes, that's more likely to be prohibited under the regualtion.
If you are doing business with them you can call. Do you not understand the regulation? If they are a client of your brokerage firm, they have accounts and are doing business with you. I'm doing business with my local phone company every month. They can legally call to sell me upgrades or ehnancements.
If I am doing business with a company they can send me the wonderful offer WITH THEIR BILL and include a phone number if I want to discuss it further. What a lame excuse... by the way what is your phone number? Don't worry about the jobs in India and Pakistan...
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?
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.
Our local electric company has a deal where if we have an outage, we call a number to report it, and then we get a callback when power is restored. Under the proposed DNC rules, the power company wouldn't be able to make those callbacks to anyone on the DNC registry unless they have previously given the power company prior permission -- permission which would then give the power company the right to call them to pitch any product they wanted. A lucrative new business opportunity for our power company!
The loopholes and unintended consequences of this hastilly devised and ill-considered measure stagger the imagination.