Second Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call list

AP ^ | 09/025/03 | David Ho

[Concentrate]

Second Judge Blocks Do-Not-Call List By DAVID HO

WASHINGTON (AP) - With remarkable speed and near unanimity, Congress on Thursday passed legislation intended to ensure consumers can block many unwanted telemarketing calls. But whether the service millions of Americans signed up for takes effect next week was thrown into doubt when a second federal judge ruled the list violates free speech protections.

U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver blocked the list late Thursday, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the national registry is unconstitutional and will devastate their industry.

His decision came shortly after the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for a bill making clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce the ``do-not-call'' list. The legislation was prompted by an earlier ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma City who said the FTC lacked the power to create and operate the registry.

The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill. President Bush said he looked forward to signing it. ``Unwanted telemarketing calls are intrusive, annoying and all too common,'' he said in a statement.

The list that would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win in court for the list to move forward.

Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling 1-888-382-1222.

The FTC asked U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West to block the order he issued Tuesday declaring the agency lacked proper authority to oversee the list. He declined Thursday and the FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The FTC had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling, but it also probably will end up with the 10th Circuit.

The suit in Nottingham's court was filed in January by two telemarketing companies and the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. ``The FTC has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by manipulating consumer choice,'' Nottingham wrote.

Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the ruling ``puts a little damper on the party, but we're still confident of prevailing in the end.'' He said Tauzin's staff was reviewing the Denver decision.

During brief debates, House and Senate members made it clear they want the list.

``Clearly the court's decision was misguided,'' said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., referring to West. ``The measure before us makes crystal clear the commission can and should proceed with the do-not-call list.''

He said the Oklahoma City ruling has ``served as a rallying cry for the tens of millions of American households who signed up for the registry.''

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said no one likes ``hopping up and down like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear somebody on the phone try to sell you something. It drives you crazy.''

The ruling caught lawmakers off guard but they responded with remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little more than 24 hours.

The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list, which after fewer than four months already has nearly 51 million numbers.

``This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime,'' said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and people were encouraged to call.

``They just keep calling to harass us, like the telemarketers harass them, I guess,'' said Rick Wade, operations manager at the district clerk's office.

Despite the torrent of angry calls Thursday, West rejected the FTC's request to block his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind.

The FTC expects the list to block four of every five telemarketing calls. Exemptions include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.

The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.

Telemarketers say the list would severely harm their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Still, the Direct Marketing Association, one of the groups that challenged the registry, said it has asked its members to obey the wishes of those who are enrolled in the registry.

National Do Not Call Registry: http://www.donotcall.gov

[Calpernia]

>>>>. Some telemarketers just sequential dial, no list needed.

I guess it all depends what type of telemarketers you have calling your house. I'm on marketing call lists.

>>>>The list isn't as big a piece of information as you'd think.

Bullpucky. I work in the world of 'The Lists'. I think you need to go see google about 'marketing lists'. It is a big add on form companies AND the gov's bottom line.

[discostu]

Did I say the list has gone away? No. What I was pointing out was that even if your number is on not one single list you will still get telemarketing calls because SOME telemarketers use sequential dialing. Learn to read, of course asking a telemarketer to learn anything is a tall order, if you guys had learned ears ago that you shouldn't recall people that hangup on you there wouldn't be a Do Not Call list.

[Hank Rearden]

I used to be rude to these twerps when they call.

Now, I'm going to be extraordinarily rude. It's time to rise up and shame these locusts out of their pest profession. Have they no self-respect that would keep them from bothering people in their homes?

I don't care if they're 85 years old and are just trying to scratch out enough for a Happy Meal. From now on, when they call me, they'll wish they were never born.

[Calpernia]

>>>>No. What I was pointing out was that even if your number is on not one single list you will still get telemarketing calls because SOME telemarketers use sequential dialing.

You don't say! Wow. Like I said, I work in the industry.

>>>Learn to read

You learn to read. I was pointing out in my original post was that companies shouldn't be allowed to sell our informtion.

discostu <----doesn't play nice with others

[discostu]

You insulted me first toots. Don't want to get insulted, don't insult. Insulting people then using your obnoxious dragon animation and pretending THEY'RE the problem is childish and annoying. Stop replying to me.

[Calpernia]

Copy and paste right now where I insulted you first. THEN I WANT a posted apology. Otherwise you get reported. From what I understand, you are on thin ice here at FR.

[discostu]

You want an apology? Here goes:
I'm sorry you don't understand that calling someone's post "bullpucky" is insulting
I'm sorry you agreed when I restated my position with no modification show that the only reason you called my post "bullpucky" was to get under my skin
I'm sorry that even though you've labeled me as not playing well with others you insist on trying to play with me any way

That's all you're getting. No pretty please, with sugar on top, leave me alone. We already know we don't like each other so instead of trying to start conversations with me that you already know are going to be unpleasant take the high road and just leave me to rot in my misery without your light that will go entirely unaprecciated.

Wishing you and yours nothing but the best
Sincerely
Disco Stu

[Badray]

Good God!

Now we are comparing telemarketers to al-Queda.

Puh-leeze.

Just say "No thank you." when telemarketers call. Don't run to the freaking federal government.

[Badray]

Do you accuse someone of theft when they breathe the air inside your home? There is no less air for you to breathe and there is no less available phone service for you.

The telemarketers use of your phone service does not diminish the use of your service so it is no more a 'taking' than some one who knocks on your door or breathes the air in your home.

While any jurisdiction may fall to the feds, do you have to run to the feds to solve a minor problem?

And think about this:

While they could get it anyway, when you sign up for this service, you save the feds a lot of time and energy by giving them your name, address, phone number, and email address all in one neat little package.

[Badray]

There are local ordinances against leaving dog poop where it is deposited by your pooch and there is a health and safety factor that goes along with the poop, unlike a phone call. I will grant you that sometimes the calls are a load of crap, but only in a virtual sense will no real hazards.

What I see now is that just like the libs, and social conservatives running to the government to regulate activities that they don't like, the last wise people on earth -- the small (l) and large (L) libertarians -- are jumping on the government regulation bandwagon. It's disheartening to say the least.

This is the Federal government that people are running to. Do you think that this regulation will be done without a large new bureaucracy and great expense?

[swarthyguy]

>>>Do we really need FEDERAL intervention?

But its for the children.

[Badray]

LOL

I can't believe that someone hasn't already used that argument.

[kingu]

Do you accuse someone of theft when they breathe the air inside your home? There is no less air for you to breathe and there is no less available phone service for you.

Incorrect. When a telemarketer calls, my phone service is tied up dealing with that telemarketer. I can not receive or make calls while they are on the line. A 'little bit' of theft is still theft, there is a victim to the crime (myself) and unlike the argument about the theft of pirated music off the Internet, I have a direct and demonstratable loss.

While any jurisdiction may fall to the feds, do you have to run to the feds to solve a minor problem?

We disagree that it is a minor problem. With an average of ten telemarketer calls per day, I loose about an hour and a half of productive work time. I work in an industry that requires creative concentration, the flow of my writing can easily be disturbed by these calls. I can't just shunt the calls to an answering machine because when calls are returned from press contacts, political office holders, etc, it wastes their time as well as mine. The calls come from rather varied areas of the country, numbers that change depending upon where they are. This, for me, is no minor problem.

While they could get it anyway, when you sign up for this service, you save the feds a lot of time and energy by giving them your name, address, phone number, and email address all in one neat little package.

They already have all that and more. Congressional press pool credentialling is rather detailed in inspection of a person. But rather than resulting to rather intriguing tin-foil suggestions, how about answering a more serious question:

By what right do you believe telemarketers have to call random people? What is the justification for their existence? Half of the phone calls I get are for re-financing, a quarter for inquiries if I want to sell my home, and the remainder are scattered from home improvements to 'free vacations', etc.

75% of these calls are demonstratable as being from companies who charge unusually high fees, interest rates and conduct business practices that frequently end up on page 8 in a report about the latest action in a wire fraud case. Why are you trying so hard to defend an industry that preys on people?

[Badray]

"Why are you trying so hard to defend an industry that preys on people?

I am not defending the industry. I am questioning 'the solution'. I am just not one to run to government for help.

If you are on the phone, the telemarketers are not so your service is unfettered. If you are not on the phone, their call may be a nuisance, but it is not a crime. If you choose to stay on the line with them, that is your choice. If you want not to be disturbed by a ringing phone while working, turn off your phone. If you are away from your desk for lunch, meetings, days off, bathroom breaks, etc., you are already missing calls, so shutting the phone off will give you both the quiet you want and control of the phone. You may find it easier to return calls at your convenience rather than taking calls when the caller (wanted or not, right number or wrong) chooses to call.

I am not being a smart ass with these suggestions. I used to get and make as many as 100 calls a day. I now have my phone ringer off but can still see the Caller ID and can pick up if I choose to take the call. It allows me to be more productive when I control the phone.

[eno_]

Do you think that this regulation will be done without a large new bureaucracy and great expense?

Yes. Here is how it works: You ftp the list from the FTC or FCC each month and scrub your database.

That's it.

If you get an unwanted call, your telco can provide the CDR proving the call, and if you are on the list, the telemarketer gets a letter demanding a fine.

What new bureaucracy? Almost the entire process can be automated.

[Badray]

" Almost the entire process can be automated."

I'm am going to assume that you are not being a smart a** and are not on drugs. I wish people who think like you were in charge of the bureaucracies, but alas, they are not like you. The operative word is *can*. But power, prestige, and money do not get build with common sense and frugality. I am sure that there will be a new bureaucracy and a new huge budget item to pay for.

[eno_]

The FCC already regulates telemarketers. Again: what new bureaucracy?

[Badray]

You may be right. The department budgets will tell the story. I'd bet that there will be an increase in personnel and budget.