'Do not call' list blocked by court

CNN Money ^ | September 24, 2003 | Reuters

[rattrap]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. court in Oklahoma has blocked the national "do not call" list that would allow consumers to stop most unwanted telephone sales calls, the Direct Marketing Association said on Wednesday.

The U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City said the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority when it set up the popular anti-telemarketing measure, according to the DMA.

[Marysecretary]

I really wish I could do that but I can't. So, instead, I just say, sorry, they aren't home and hang up, or just let the phone ring so it goes to my voice machine.

[Labyrinthos]

The problem is that a judge decides to over-rule the decision of 50 million fellow Americans who have voluntarily chosen to place their names/numbers on the list those bureaucrats have offered.

The U.S. constitution sets forth the process for enacting laws, and no where in the Constitution is there a provision that allows anyone (citizens and non-citizens alike) to legislate by expressing a popular view with an executive agency. If the Judge is wrong, then he will be overturned on appeal. If he is right, then petition your congressman and senator to give the FTC the authority to establish a "do not law list," and if they don't, then vote them out of office. But don't suggest something stupid like the law must be constituional simply because 50 million people (many of whom are probably not even legally eligible to vote) approve of the regulation.

[shempy]

I am in the telemarketing industry and this is not the decision that the industry wanted. This decision says the FTC lacks authorization. Big deal. They will either shift the effort to the FCC, which DOES have the authority, or congress will pass a wildly popular bill that will grant the FTC this authority.

Personally, I am eager for all this stuff to take effect. I run a 170 seat Inbound center. My center does a small amount of business to business outbound work that isn't impacted by this legislation anyway. And even if it was it wouldn't break my heart or my budget if it went away.

The short term consequences on some of the business done at our other sites is negative. But longterm, I expect that this legislation will bring more business to inbound call centers. And since that is where my passion is, I say dig it!

[Labyrinthos]

Again, isn't that "delegation" precisely what was accomplished in the statute passed by Congress and signed by the President a few months ago?

I don't know because I haven't read the court's decision or the statute. I'm not saying the district court is right. What I am saying is that we ought to read the court's decision before blasting the result. The goal here should be to applaud any court decision that prohibits a government agency from legislating by regulatory enactment beyond the scope of its enabling authority.

[Skooz]

It's a simple matter of property rights.

I own my phone. I pay my phone bill. I paid to get the phone connected. I own my home.

These are uninvited guests in my home. I lack the power to keep these guests from returning again and again and again. I therefore allow the government the authority to repel these invaders at my behest.

[azhenfud]

I still can't figure out why we have to pay to not get something we don't want.

Reckon we can discover a way they could pay us for us not selling them something?

[Labyrinthos]

It's a simple matter of property rights.

Its a simple matter of constitutional law and jurisprudence. There's a right way and a wrong way to enact laws and regulations. If the regulation was enacted properly then I'm all for it. If it isn't, then hopefully someone will do it right.

[cookcounty]

"Perhaps those of us with free long distance can exercise our First Amendment rights and let the court know how we feel by calling them at (405)609-5000. Be sure and call frequently, preferably at mealtimes when they are short-handed."

Oh yes. And remember, just as the telemarketers have found, it may take many many many calls before the recipient truly gets the message. Like the the telemarketers, do NOT stop calling, just because they said "no."

[Martin Tell]

longterm, I expect that this legislation will bring more business to inbound call centers. And since that is where my passion is, I say dig it!

Good for you! What a great attitude. I have no problem with call centers; that is what "customer service" is these days. I just don't like being called and interrupted by folks asking me to change my long distance carrier or buy vinyl siding five times a day. We have a "do not call list" in Tennessee, but business telephone lines (like my home business) are excluded.

I wish you every success.

[steve-b]

I still can't figure out why we have to pay to not get something we don't want.

There are neighborhoods where you have to pay to not get your kneecaps broken. That's illegal, and the same principle should apply here.

[cookcounty]

I just got through with no busy stgnal!!!!! Now why is that????!!!!! I have to admit though, the lady did seem a bit frazzled.

[ampat]

I wonder how many other rulings or laws the FTC has passed that congress hasn't specifically given them permission to pass? That judge may have opened pandora's box. These judges are giving trial lawyers lifetime employment.

[azhenfud]

Agree

[cookcounty]

How do you do that? I hope you're not referring to caller ID which is worthless if you're in the garage or taking a dump or in the basement ( or anywhere but your desk), even then you have to think about whether or not your daughter's friends' sister was going to call with instructions on where to pick up your lottery winnings and whether the number has a match. I can only remember about 10 numbers in my head, so I'm sunk.

[cookcounty]

What's killing me is all these companies that are starting to call every 48 hours and tell you they're not selling you anything, they just want to give you some answers to some frequently asked questions about mortgages.

[6ppc]

Has anyone slamming the court's decision actually read it?

No, and I don't care. Blocking implementation is uncalled for under any circumstances.

[6ppc]

Perhaps those of us with free long distance can exercise our First Amendment rights and let the court know how we feel by calling them at

(405)609-5000

.

I just called and had no trouble getting through. They took my name and said they would register my complaint.

Get Busy Calling! Jam the lines!

[billbears]

BellSouth Privacy Director

Costs me a $1.95 a month. Haven't had one call blocked I wanted and I can count on one hand the number of times in the past six months a telemarketer actually got through.

It's unbelievable isn't it? Relying on a private company instead of the national government to fix a minor annoyance? Simply boggles the mind

[azhenfud]

"But don't suggest something stupid like the law must be constituional simply because 50 million people (many of whom are probably not even legally eligible to vote) approve of the regulation."

Your debating the underlined is based upon supposition, so I'm not going there. I am pointing out the authority to regulate communications IS the responsibility of the FCC - the only agency with enforcing authority given by "Congress Assembled"; it is not the responsibility of a judge or court.

The FCC allowed the public an option to decide by placing their name on the list, objectors abstain. The judge takes that right away without consent of the populus. The judge says even if you voluntarily requested you not be called - you will be. In your opinion, is that "constitutional"?

[LTCJ]

Perhaps those of us with free long distance can exercise our First Amendment rights and let the court know how we feel by calling them

Better yet, call the plaintiff, the Direct Marketing Association at 212 768-7277, and get their side of the story. For the real scoop, contact the president of the Association directly at 212.768.7277, ext. 1604 (President's Office) or e-mail him at Presiden@the-dma.org to solicit his opinion directly.

I'm sure he won't mind, being a chief proponent of the concept.