Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
FTC's National "Do Not Call" Registry Coming Soon

By SaintPort in MLP
Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 11:18:37 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags) 		News

While listening to NPR this morning I heard about the FTC's National "Do Not Call" Registry for telemarketers for the first time.

It's about time.  I really hope this does not get derailed or neutered.

ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (15)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Why?  As family members age and experience health complications, communication to and from them becomes more critical.  But there is a trend of 'not picking up the phone because its probably a pushy sales person'.  This is a real fear when you know you will not understand the sales pitch or the questions.  

So, we all got Caller ID so we would not miss important calls.  But if I call a loved one from work, the company has its ID blanked-out, so my call may be ignored.

We got a telezapper to help out.  But for it to work, someone must answer the call.

I don't expect the FTC list to solve all these problems.  I just hope it becomes an effective tool to add to our arsenal.

I realize that there is a furious 'Free Speech' debate here.  But a telephone is not a public forum.  The service is paid for by the individual, who should be allowed to post a 'No Soliciting' sign.

Main links:

The web address and phone number for registration will be available at
http://www.ftc.gov/donotcall.

The National "Do Not Call" Registry

Amendment to the Telemarketing Sales Rule

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers a choice about whether they want to receive most telemarketing calls. Consumers soon will be able to put their phone numbers on a national "do not call" registry. It will be illegal for most telemarketers to call a number listed on the registry.

Q&A: The FTC's Changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt.htm

FTC Unveils National 'No Call' List for Telemarketers  Dec. 18, 2002
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=883948
'Do Not Call' List  Jun. 7, 2002
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1144612
Marketers Squawk At FTC No-Call List
http://www.cardforum.com/html/cardmark/may02_3.htm
Turf wars...
Attorney General To FTC: Do Not Preempt State "No Call" Programs Protecting Consumer Privacy
http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-037.htm

Related links:

This organization wants to [non]profit from your misfortune...
Anybody know anything about these folks?

Stop Spam & Telemarketers Now!
  Have your personal information removed from marketer's lists.
  Remove.Org forces marketers to be responsible and accountable.
  Protect children from being exposed to adult related material.
  Annual membership is $9.95 for all three services.
http://www.remove.org/

Sick of Telemarketers?
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/1/171114/3724

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Note: You must accept a cookie to log in.

Poll
put your data on said list?
o YES! ASAP! 69%
o I'll see how it goes with others first. 12%
o As soon as I get a refund for my Telezapper. 0%
o As long as it does not infringe on State's Rights. 3%
o It will never happen. 3%
o beh, baa baa, beh. 6%
o Does this have anything to do with National ID? 1%
o No, infringes on Free Speech! 3%

Votes: 62
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o http://www .ftc.gov/donotcall
o http://www .ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncalrt.htm
o http://dis cover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=883948
o http://dis cover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1144612
o http://www .cardforum.com/html/cardmark/may02_3.htm
o http://caa g.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-037.htm
o http://www .remove.org/
o http://www .kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/1/171114/3724
o Also by SaintPort

Display: Sort:
FTC's National "Do Not Call" Registry Coming Soon | 105 comments (97 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
www.private-citizen.com (4.66 / 3) (#5)
by rhdntd on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 12:11:05 PM EST

I don't know anything about remove.org, but I'll attest that private-citizen.com <http://www.private-citizen.com> does seem to do what they say they will.  They have eight pages of comments on this matter, calling for stricter standards:

<http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6513396859> (PDF)

-- 
"book chicks really seem to like anal"
  — Lady 3Jane

Some states already have one (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Mister Pmosh on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 12:11:40 PM EST

There are already state do not call lists that exist. It seems that the federal version will be drawing off of the state versions. You will still be able to recieve some telemarketing, I believe from political campaigns and certain non-profit organizations. However, it is a good start to eliminate most of the calls.
"I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!" -- Carl
Of course, it's unconstitutional (1.81 / 11) (#7)
by tiger cub on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 12:11:53 PM EST

Freedom of speech and all that.

Speaking as the son of a well-known lawyer, I support a more distributed approach. My mom, who is a physicist, also agrees with me that we don't need laws to get these losers to stop phoning us. I use this algorithm:

1) Politely listen to the spiel
2) Calmly inform the caller of my aforementioned connections to the worlds of law and science
3) Wait for apology
4) If no apology is forthcoming, I tell the caller that a "device" is at their place of business and will be "going off" soon.

I had the FBI contact me about that last item once, but my father the lawer sent them a well-reasoned explanation that I wasn't talking about a bomb and that it wasn't a threat. They didn't believe that until I explained further that if I wanted to make a threat I could have menaced the telemarketer with my Japanese kotake.

.tiger cub.
"Man is more courageous,
pugnacious, and energetic than woman,
and has a more inventive genius."

How do you spell your name, Fred? Answer: balls. (4.50 / 2) (#14)
by dagg on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 03:07:39 PM EST

The story is here: K5 Journal Entry

If we really do get a "Do Not Call" registry, then it'll get a lot harder to do fun stuff like that.


--
Find Yer Sex Gateway
-1 Where the f*ck is this happening? (1.00 / 20) (#19)
by Djinh on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 04:31:03 PM EST

Oh, I know, it's one of those idiot USians again who believe the planet ends at the US-Mexican border...

--
We are the Euro. Resistance is futile. All your dollars will be assimilated.
For comparison (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by Vulch on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 04:33:04 PM EST

The Telephone Preference Service in the UK has the backing of legislation. It is an offence to make a marketing call (they don't have to try and sell you anything) to someone registered with the TPS, and marketroids breaching that can be subject to a 5000 pound fine per call. Buying a copy of the list isn't cheap, but the fines can very quickly get to be a lot more expensive.

Political canvassing is currently a grey area. The Liberal Democrats do use the TPS lists before calling, and I beleive the Conservatives do as well. The Labour party don't and I understand are the subject of a case heading for the courts to determine if trying to persuade someone to vote for a particular party is 'marketing'.

Anthony

How to put them all out of business (4.25 / 4) (#29)
by Work on Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 10:21:17 PM EST

It's quite simple really. These places work by volume. Most people don't buy anything, so they make up for it with sheer volume of calls. That way maybe a .05% return makes them some money.

Theres a limited number of hours per day though, and most calls last a handful of seconds, so they can get hundreds in an hour done.

But what if you kept them on the line for minutes at a time without buying anything?

And so this is what I do. Whenever I get one of these, I just says 'hold on a second'.

Then I set the phone down. And walk off, or continue whatever the hell i was doing before the call. Eventually they hang up, but usually it takes several minutes.

This keeps them on the line for awhile...one time as long as 8 minutes or so!

If everyone did this, they'd only make a handful of calls in an hour, and be out of business in a month. It's easy, requires no effort, and the phone will tell you when they're gone with that loud off-hook tone. Plus you're taking tons of money away from them with every minute that they stay on the line.

Eh, wouldn't it make more sense.... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by poopi on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 08:22:44 AM EST

...to have a National "Please Call Me" Registry. And why should the public foot the bill for this? It should be a corporate funded "Please Call Me" Registry. Now THAT would keep our dinners uninterrupted. As it stands will there be a "Don't rip me off" Registry? A "Don't overbill me" Registry? How bout a "Don't lay me off, to raise the stock price a few points" Registry? Sometimes I look at America and I wonder if there is anyone left there with a brain and a heart (Unintentional Wizard of Oz reference - please sign me up for the "Please don't sue me under stupid IP law" Registry).

-----

"It's always nice to see USA set the edgy standards. First for freedom, then for the police state." - chimera

Reply to the 1st amendmenters (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by cgenman on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 12:47:44 PM EST

The 1st amendment is a necessary, wonderful little ideal that is really the only true thing we can point to when we say "land of the free."  

The first amendment prevents anyone from forcing anyone else to "shut up" when they don't like what they are saying.  However, we are talking about a telephone conversation on private property, and freedom of speech does not preclude the freedom to kick someone out of your house or the choice to terminate the conversation.  As 1 in 500 calls are successful, there are bound to be 499 people who are unhappy with having recieved the call, and if those 499 people so choose they can codify their choices at the FCC site.

Freedom of speech also implies freedom to choose to listen or not.  I choose not to listen to be interrupted by these pushy marketers during my relaxing time at home.  I see nothing unconstitutional about this at all.

-C

- This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future. This is only a device.

Fear? (3.00 / 1) (#35)
by tzanger on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 01:27:18 PM EST

It's your damned phone. If the ass on the other end won't shut up, you hang up. what's he going to do, come to your house and make you buy the widget? puh-lease.

About telezapper (4.50 / 2) (#40)
by Mr.Surly on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 05:15:50 PM EST

It's funny that you should mention telezapper. Telezapper works by sending a short burst of the first tone of the 3-tone signal you hear when a number is no longer working ("do-ray-mee The number you have dialed is no longer in service"), AKA "SIT tones".

I know this because I develop the software for a service that calls phone numbers and leaves (sales) messages on answering machines. Before you get your panties in a bunch: Our customers only target their existing customers, which are businesses -- it's not sales "cold calls" to private idividuals.

In any case, we write and maintain our own software to do this, using Intel Dialogic cards. Turns out that the default parameters for these cards (more accurately, their device drivers) is to terminate an outgoing call with an error immediately when it hears that first tone. We would then mark that number as invalid.

Just today, we made a 5-line modification to our software that requires that the 2nd tone be present. This effectively nullified the "telezapper." While newer models of the tleezapper let you flip a switch to send all 3 tones, noone will do that because most people (legitimate calls, that is) just hang up when they hear those three tones.

To make a long story short: Expect that the telezapper will sooner or later be obsolete (more likely sooner), as manufacturers of predictive dialer software update their code to avoid the telezapper.

This isn't a free speech issue. (3.50 / 6) (#43)
by kurtmweber on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 06:18:27 PM EST

It's a property rights and voluntary agreement issue. Here's why:
  1. Your telephone is your property, and it is located inside your house, which is your property.
  2. The lines running to your phone, while they are the telephone company's property, run through your house and your yard--both of which are your property.
  3. The switching equipment is the telephone company's property.
  4. You voluntarily choose to purchase telephone service.
  5. You voluntarily choose to allow the telephone company to run their lines through your property.
  6. One of the following two statements is true:
    1. Your telephone company chooses not to allow telemarketer calls to be carried through their lines. In that case:
      1. Your telephone case has a civil case against any telemarketer that makes calls to customers using their lines.
      2. Through your choice to use the telephone company's service, you voluntarily accepted this term as you accepted all other terms in their agreement.
    2. Your telephone company does allow telemarketer calls to be carried through their lines. In that case:
      1. Since you voluntarily agreed to have phone service, you voluntarily agreed to deal with whatever comes over the phone lines into your house, including telemarketer calls.
Either way, government has no place sponsoring, creating, or enforcing a "do not call" list, as receipt of telemarketer calls is ultimately either (a) something you agreed to, and so have no one to bitch to but yourself; or (b) something you explicitly did not agree to, and so have a civil case against telemarketers. Incidentally, if you change the nouns then this is why I oppose anti-spam legislation as well.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
Free speech? (4.50 / 2) (#49)
by snowmoon on Fri Jan 03, 2003 at 08:14:17 PM EST

For those need clarification....

Unregulated free speech does not extend to those who are speaking "With a profit motive".  Sales calls fall into this category and can and have been regulated in the US at the state level.

The supreme court has held that non-for-profit and personal freedoms to speech are held in the highest reguard and that ANY barrier to that speech is a breach of constitution guarantees.  A DNC list would be prohibited in this case.

If anyone would like to research this, many cases can be found in the findlaw database ( http://www.findlaw.com/ ).

I like this... (4.50 / 2) (#61)
by /dev/trash on Sat Jan 04, 2003 at 09:33:02 PM EST

But I disagree with a National list.  Let the states handle it.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
Question... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by dimroed on Sun Jan 05, 2003 at 02:53:20 PM EST

How does this directory apply to telemarketers calling from outside the U.S? I know there are several companies around Toronto that call all of North America, and I've recently read some articles about the large number of call centers operating out of India and serving the United States.

If the Registry only applies to US companies, I'd expect the number of calls originating from other countries to shoot up.

Non profit calls (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by inertia on Sun Jan 05, 2003 at 03:41:09 PM EST

I've been getting some calls lately asking me to complete over-the-phone surveys (which I don't bother with); would those calls have to stop even if they are only seeking information? What they end up doing with that information is of course what may be generating revenue, but the phone call is not soliciting money/goods/services directly from you.

No-Call-List...Not just for phones anymore (4.00 / 1) (#73)
by alizasmurf on Sun Jan 05, 2003 at 04:32:32 PM EST

Going further with the idea, is there anyway we can establish a no-knocking list? I live in a community that prosecutes against solicitors, complete with signs, yet I am subject to half a dozen christian groups prosletyizing every few days or so. I'm jewish, and frankly, quite tired of this pseudo-conversion BS constantly. Does anyone want to join me in the Anti-Conversion Advertising League?

I want a no TV ad list... (2.00 / 3) (#78)
by dipierro on Sun Jan 05, 2003 at 06:20:18 PM EST

I put my address on the list, and they're not allowed to send me television ads.

what effects will this have on the economy (none / 0) (#84)
by kha0z on Mon Jan 06, 2003 at 12:14:22 AM EST

i am one of the many telemarketer haters. but seriously, with the US being in such a shady economical state, what would the side effects of this do not call list have on the existing economy.

telemarketing is a large industry that provides a large number of jobs and serves as a way to increase the revenue of the retail, manufacturing, credit, service, and many other markets.

this part of the idea scares me. however, no more telemarketers waking me up and annoying me also sounds very nice.
--kha0z

While not universally respected (none / 0) (#86)
by CaptainZapp on Mon Jan 06, 2003 at 06:27:04 AM EST

You can ask Swisscom Directories (the company currently maintaining phone/fax number directories for historical monopolistic reasons, alas this might change) to mark your entries as Does not wish to be pestered with ads.

Within a directory entry this is a simple asterisk near the number(s) and includes (and is usually respected) direct mail.

While this is not universally respected by telemarketers (it mostly is, though) it's a great weapon to field unwanted calls fast and (in most cases) fairly politely. A sample dialogue can look like:

RING, RING...

Me: Hello

TM: Hello, who is in charge for office supply purchases?

Me: I'm sorry sir, this number is marked as not wishing to receive telemarketer calls. I'm not interested in your offer

TM: (usually) OK, bye bye

This is not absolutely consistent, but works almost always on (rare) calls. Somethimes you do have persistant bastards like the guy calling three times in a week (the third call was not handled politely) or idiots that have the gall to ask why I'm not interested in their offer, which is really non of ther fscking business.

In this case I switch very rapidly to unpolite mode and with real persistant basatrds I can get outright obnoxious.

It's very simple: It's my phone, it's my time and it's my right to chose if I want to talk to you. I don't owe anybody an explanation why I want to be left alone. Period!

FTC's National "Do Not Call" Registry Coming Soon | 105 comments (97 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!