Do Not Call registry -- pro or con?

[december]

The FCC has established a National "Do Not Call" registry (http://www.donotcall.gov/). By registering your phone number, you will prevent most telemarking calls. The cost of this program is being levied on the telemarketers by the government. Pollsters and charities will still be able to call.

This seems wonderful to me. I just registered. Starting in a few months, my family will avoid most of those stupid calls.

Is this reason to think well of Bush? How big a deal is it? Does it change your mind about voting for him?

OTOH maybe this sort of regulation is not properly the government's job. Is it a free speech violation? Is it a tenth Amendment violation? Is it fair to make the telemarketers pay for a program that will hurt their business or even bankrupt them? Should the private sector have dealt with this problem without government interference?

Also, will the program work? Will marketers find loopholes to keep on calling? E.g., FAIK they might be able to legally telemarket by somehow combining a product with a charitable request or a survey.

[elucidator]

I am in complete agreement with friend december, and must now dash off to purchase an umbrella to protect me from pig flop falling from the sky.

What a bold initiative from Fearless Misleader! He has courageously moved against the forces of telemarketing, in the face of overwhelming popular support. Now that's leadership! Figure out where everybody is going, and run out ahead of them with a banner!

[Avalonian]

I think the DNC registry is a great idea, though it could have some detrimental effects in the short term. I've already signed up my phone number for it as well.

I don't understand why this should affect our opinions of Bush one way or the other. Did he have anything to do with it, other than signing a law (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20020123a.asp)? FTC Chairman Timothy Muris (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/06/donotcallmuris.htm) doesn't feel the need to give him any credit for it...

The Federal Communications Commission today showed how agencies of the federal government can work together, each using their particular jurisdiction and expertise, to protect U.S. consumers. I applaud the fine leadership of Chairman Powell, the Commissioners, and the hard-working staff of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau for their outstanding efforts, and look forward to collaborating with them on this important initiative.

(emphasis added)

I credit more those who wrote the law and brought it into being, pushing it through the legislation process. I'm glad Bush signed it, but frankly, I've never even heard him talk about it. It doesn't seem to have been one of his initiaitives, and it doesn't affect my opinion of him at all.

Telemarketers may be hurt in the short term, but in the long term I expect they'll find ways around the law, just as they always have. It already seems like there's some loopholes already. From the first cite above:

But don't expect to eat your dinner uninterrupted every night. A lot of companies are exempt from the new rules. They include companies you have previously done business with, some banks, long-distance phone companies, airlines and politicians.

Also, the five-year renewal process will be a loophole... If I forget to renew my registration in five years (and I just might forget), I'm fair game again.

I would say that it's fair to make telemarketers pay for the new legislation, as they're the ones who make money from the business, and stand to make more. If they want to legally continue to do business via this particular avenue, they should be able to pay the price for doing so. I have no problem with them paying for it. Making the consumer pay for it, on the other hand, would be inappropriate.

So... yes, good law, and I'm glad to see it.

[Gadarene]

Erratum: It's the FTC, not the FCC, whose registry this is.

Is this reason to think well of Bush? How big a deal is it? Does it change your mind about voting for him?

Sincere question: what did Bush have to do with this? How much overt support has he lent it? Was it his idea? Administrative agencies, as you know, often act with a great deal of autonomy--the administration does not oversee every jot and tittle of agency policy. This is especially the case with a body like the FTC, which is at least nominally independent, and as such not under the purview of the executive branch at all.

So even assuming that the do-not-call registry is a good thing, how much credit does the President deserve for it?

[Gadarene]

Per Avalonian's post, I'll apologize for my misinformation--as he notes, it's the FCC and the FTC.

[elucidator]

Well, he did invent the Internet, didn't he?

[Fear Itself]

Is it fair to make the telemarketers pay for a program that will hurt their business or even bankrupt them? Of course it is; it is also appropriate for the government to require cigarette makers to pay for PSA's against smoking, and require brewers and distillers to promote responsible drinking. Businesses do not have a de facto right to exist free of government interference; I am sure that the drug cartel isn't overly fond of laws banning the sale of narcotics. When the public good is served by interference, it is justified, even if it means the destruction of an industry and loss of jobs. There are several industries that deserve to be bankrupted by government, and I for one support efforts to do so.

[El_Kabong]

Is this reason to think well of Bush?

What, if anything did GWB have to do with this other than signing it into law? Yes, I think better of him for signing the bloody bill. Not enough to even consider voting for him, but hey.

How big a deal is it?

This should have been done years ago. After I moved to Texas, I've kept a cell phone only, rather than a land line, in part (although not entirely) because of the annoyance of telemarketers. If this system works, maybe I'll consider getting a land line again.

Does it change your mind about voting for him?

See first item above.

[Apos]

When the public good is served by interference, it is justified, even if it means the destruction of an industry and loss of jobs.

Yes, but that's a rationale for the entire PUBLIC to pay for it, not just the people doing the business.

Frankly, I think it's a little sneaky to say it's "justified" as if this was some factual matter. That it's justified for the government to act to correct externalities is a particular value that has to be argued for, not simply assumed. The government could certainly make me live longer if it forced me to stop spending so much time on the computer, but it's not automatically correct that it's just that it does so.

The reason _I_ think it's justified (note, I DON'T think it's justified to have tobacco companies pay for PSAs about the dangers of tobacco or your other exmaples) is that the telemarketers are spending your time to bother you. Personally, I think this law is far too timid. If someone wants to buy my time to sell me something, even if they are not successful, they should pay me for it. Simple as that.

[Early Out]

I think the fundamental mistake was establishing a "do not call" registry. If we've agreed that the government has the power, constitutionally, to prevent telemarketers from calling people who don't want to be called, why not establish a "do call" registry, instead. The telemarketers then wouldn't have to purge their lists of millions of numbers - they could just download the list of numbers of people who want to get calls, and start dialing.

[Leaper]

december, are you seriously suggesting that those who believe that the Administration lied about WMDs, is destroying the environment, and is in the pocket of big business should change their minds based on THIS? Do you really believe anyone will? What purpose does this post have, other than to bring to light a good thing the White House did, while tacitly suggesting that we ignore all the bad?

I sure don't recall any Clinton supporters doing anything like this (hell, if you want me to qualify it, I'll add "not nearly as often and with such clear motives")...

[Leaper]

december, are you seriously suggesting that those who believe that the Administration lied about WMDs, is destroying the environment, and is in the pocket of big business should change their minds based on THIS? Do you really believe anyone will? What purpose does this post have, other than to bring to light a good thing the White House did, while tacitly suggesting that we ignore all the bad?

I sure don't recall any Clinton supporters doing anything like this (hell, if you want me to qualify it, I'll add "not nearly as often and with such clear motives")...

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by Early Out
I think the fundamental mistake was establishing a "do not call" registry. If we've agreed that the government has the power, constitutionally, to prevent telemarketers from calling people who don't want to be called, why not establish a "do call" registry, instead. The telemarketers then wouldn't have to purge their lists of millions of numbers - they could just download the list of numbers of people who want to get calls, and start dialing.
I like that. I felt the same way (sort of) about "caller id" when it first came out. If you want the service of displaying your phone number to everyone you call, you could order that service. The way it is now, you have to refuse it.
I signed up, though. The list should stop most calls. I think you can avoid most of the others by telling them not to call you again.
Until then, I plan to tell all unsolicited callers that "I'm on the list" and hang up.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Monty]

mangeorge: I feel that Caller ID should be a free service provided by the phone companies. That's because I think I have every right to know who it is attempting to gain access to me in my home. Just consider the Caller ID to be a peephole for the phone!

[mangeorge]

The blocking service is free. But you can't have your number blocked for 800 (business) and 976 (porn) numbers.
I have mine blocked in case I missdial. I have a right to not reveal my address, etc. to a stranger.

[ghostrider]

Telemarketers cease to be an annoyance if you don't answer the phone. That's why God created answering machines.

Seriously, I never pick up the phone, because it's usually wasted motion, I wait to hear who it is over the speaker. Once you lose the reflex of picking up a ringing phone, the rest is simple.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by elucidator
What a bold initiative from Fearless Misleader! He has courageously moved against the forces of telemarketing, in the face of overwhelming popular support. Now that's leadership! Figure out where everybody is going, and run out ahead of them with a banner!
And yet when he goes against public opinion, he's criticized for that.

[5-HT]

It seems unlikely that you will find many people that will be opposed to this. At the same time, it baffles me as to why someone would use this as a reason to support George W. Why do you think this would be the case. this is hardly a partisan issue. If I'm a shepard and a wolf and a fox are both eating my sheep, and the wolf kills the fox, should I suddenly become a big supporter of the wolf?

[DoctorJ]

A lot of companies are exempt from the new rules. They include companies you have previously done business with, some banks, long-distance phone companies, airlines and politicians.
Then what bloody use is it? 90% of the telemarketing calls I get are from banks (credit card offers) or from long-distance phone companies.

This strikes me as a process designed to look like it's doing something about telemarketing without actually doing anything. I expect no less from this administration.

(Not that I think Bush has much to do with this--I'm just following the OP's lead.)

Dr. J

[mecaenas]

It strikes me as bizzarre that you have to register to opt-out of telemarketing; wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to run a database of everyone who did want to receive telemarketing? Was an idea ever tabled to actually have opt-in instead of opt-out? i.e. the same as reputable email news.

[Hayduke Lives!!]

Originally posted by El_Kabong
What, if anything did GWB have to do with this other than signing it into law?


Couldn't this same thing had been said about President Clinton from 1995-2001? Didn't he just sign bills passed by a Republican congress, then take all the credit for how swell the country was doing?
What's the diff?:confused:

[Marley23]

Didn't he just sign bills passed by a Republican congress, then take all the credit for how swell the country was doing?

Um... not totally, no. Some bills start as plans or initiatives created by the President (or his people), and are passed by Congress. So sometimes the credit should go to the President. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases, as Bush didn't come up with this idea - as a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure it existed before he was elected, since Missouri (for one) has had a no-call list for several years - thus, he wouldn't really deserve credit for it if he was trying to take it.

[Early Out]

Originally posted by mecaenas
It strikes me as bizzarre that you have to register to opt-out of telemarketing; wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to run a database of everyone who did want to receive telemarketing?
Just like I said, yesterday, in this thread (scroll up!).

[barton]

Oddly enough, my first reaction to this was a strong reluctance to register anything with the government, for good or bad. It reminds me of spam where you email back asking to get off their list and they use it to confirm that the address is good. That list could be misused.

A better idea is to outlaw telemarketing altogether. It would wipe out a lot of jobs, but frankly they're crappy, honorless jobs that waste manpower that a real industry could be using.

Maybe this is why I don't have a land line and the phone company insists someone else lives here.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by elucidator
What a bold initiative from Fearless Misleader! He has courageously moved against the forces of telemarketing, in the face of overwhelming popular support. Now that's leadership! Figure out where everybody is going, and run out ahead of them with a banner! Eh. I would have predicted W to take the "less interference from gov't" stance regardless of popular opinion, so I'm giving him a bit of credit on these one.

He's still nowhere near in the category that I'd vote for him, but credit where credit is due.