National Do Not Call List may be illegal?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Yes.

Cell phones typically have different blocks of numbers than landlines.

[robertliguori]

I don’t think there’s any way to fight back directly like that. Telemarketing is clearly an extremely inefficient way to market products and services. It only works because they engage in massive operations of underpaid workers who place the calls. They don’t care that the success rate is extremely low, and I doubt they would care even if large numbers of people began trying to subvert them, as long as it works once in awhile. It’s the old reasoning of throwing a ton of shit against the wall and hoping that some of it might stick. If we make it harder for them, I’m sure they’d be quite happy to just throw TWO tons of shit against the wall.

That’s kind of my point. If we could decrease the amount of shit they have available by using it up in a way that didn’t get us all stinky, then we could out-do them. In this case, shit = time. For example, if everyone who received a call from a telemarketer strung it out as long as possible and didn’t buy, the average length of call would go up, and sales would decrease. Whether it would do it enough is another question.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**Cell phones typically have different blocks of numbers than landlines. **

But it looks like that may change.

From CNN.com yesterday. New rules let you ditch landline, keep number for cell phone

[PhiloVance]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**Yes.

Cell phones typically have different blocks of numbers than landlines. **

And the telemarketers are privy to this info? Your answer leaves a lot of questions. :rolleyes:

[Already_in_Use]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
And that will accomplish nothing at all. Knock yourself out.

Well, I was hoping to shame every single person in that hideous industry into repentance, but I admit that may have been a rather ambtitious goal…

[carrot]

*Originally posted by blowero *
Actually, now that I think about it, if the FCC was supposed to enact the list, WHY THE HELL DIDN’T THEY?

I think that the FTC is arguing that the referenced bill that Bush signed, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, gave it the authority to operate the list. Why they just don’t transfer administration of the list to the FCC, I’ve no idea. Probably some esoteric budget wranglings that have to go on, but this has quite a large amount of public support, and you’d think that could grease the wheels a bit.

Or possibly I’m just being overly optimistic.

[Isabelle]

I knew the DON"T CALL LIST was too good to be true!

[Ike_Witt]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**No fan of telemarketers I.

But I’m not sure if the expressions of disgust above are at the general state of affairs, or an expression of a legal opinion different from the judge’s. If the latter, I’d be curious to know what your reasoning is.

• Rick **

IANAL, but I would be interested in hearing your opinions on some of the details of the case.

The DMA and other plaintiffs argued the do-not-call registry violated their rights under the First Amendment, allowing freedom of speech, and the Fifth Amendment, which grants due process of law. They said the FTC’s rules “discriminate against speech based upon content and identity of speakers and … suppresses far more speech than necessary.”

Is the law really in violation of the first amendment? The law doesn’t prevent them from doing business or place limits on what they can say, it only limits them from calling people who don’t want to be called. In fact, if it is a violation of the first amendment, isn’t denying the consumer the chance to opt out the same violation?

The judge held that it was “inappropriate” for Congress to have allowed the FTC to interpret the congressional orders on its own, saying it “raises serious constitutional questions.”

How serious are the questions raised, and what exactly are they?

[blowero]

*Originally posted by carrot *
I think that the FTC is arguing that the referenced bill that Bush signed, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, gave it the authority to operate the list.

Yeah - I have no idea what that’s all about, though. If you try to look up Omnibus blah blah, on the web, you get something that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with telemarketing.

Why they just don’t transfer administration of the list to the FCC, I’ve no idea. Probably some esoteric budget wranglings that have to go on, but this has quite a large amount of public support, and you’d think that could grease the wheels a bit.

But my question is: why didn’t the FCC do it in the first place? I guess we’ll have to wait 'til more info comes out. The Yahoo article is just too sketchy:

But the judge said Congress gave the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), not the FTC, the authority to operate “a single national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to receiving telephone solicitations.”

It would be nice if they could have mentioned where and when Congress gave them that authority. It’s pretty fucking vague.

[Flymaster]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**And that will accomplish nothing at all. Knock yourself out.

Face it, folks. The only effective remedy against telemarketers is to not buy and make everyone not buy.

The minute it’s not profitable it’ll stop. But not a minute before. **

I’m well aware that it won’t accomplish anything. But it sure is fun.

[Scruloose]

*Originally posted by Isabelle *
**I knew the DON"T CALL LIST was too good to be true! **

Oh, don’t I know it. Just when Uncle Sam does something good that most folks are really happy about, somebody has to come in and take a big dump all over the floor.

:rolleyes:

I was up to about 7-10 calls a week before I absolutely lost it on a few of them. With DirecTV, I told them that if I get one more friggin call from them, I would cancel my service, get the Dishnetwork, and I didn’t give a rats ass what type of service I’d get or how much I paid… I am one stubborn bastard who’s now operating on principal.

Haven’t heard a peep from them in months.

[Max_Torque]

*Originally posted by Jonathan Chance *
**And that will accomplish nothing at all. Knock yourself out.

Face it, folks. The only effective remedy against telemarketers is to not buy and make everyone not buy.

The minute it’s not profitable it’ll stop. But not a minute before. **

Which is why you’d think they’d be thrilled with a national do-not-call list. The list should save them time by keeping them from calling people who wouldn’t be buying their products in the first place. Thus, they don’t waste resources trying to sell to non-customers. The claim that the list would cost direct marketing more than half of its annual profits is a ridiculous overstatement.

[Rico]

*From the Washington Post *
Telemarketing experts said the do-not-call list may not be able to go forward unless the agency wins on appeal or Congress specifically gives the (FTC) authority to implement it.

Anyone up for calling their congressperson?

[Scruloose]

Oh, and this is why Dave Barry gets my vote for President. Apparently, the column was quite a hit with the folks at the American Teleservices Association, when thousands of readers flooded their phone systems as a result.

[Monty]

So long as telemarketers are using–and paying for–telephone calls, the phone companies will be very delighted to continue having their business. At least that’s my opinion.

[Rico]

*Originally posted by Chandeleur *
**Oh, and this is why Dave Barry gets my vote for President. Apparently, the column was quite a hit with the folks at the American Teleservices Association, when thousands of readers flooded their phone systems as a result. **

Apparently so much that the number is now disconnected.

All hail the awesome power of Dave!

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Casey1505 *
To hijack my own thread, I’ve given this some serious thought, moreso to save on long distance, since most cell plans offer free nationwide long distance. The only thing really holding me back is that I have a dial-up connection for my computer, and to upgrade to cable in my area is kind of expensive.

Depending on how much you’re willing to spend and how much time you spend online, you may be able to use the internet through your cell phone. Sprint and Verizon both have high-speed data plans (50-144 kbps).

*Originally posted by PhiloVance *
And the telemarketers are privy to this info [different blocks of numbers for cell phones and landlines]?

Yes. When you work with phone numbers all day, you quickly learn which prefixes belong to which phone companies, which towns, and which areas of town. Even if you don’t pick it up from experience, the information is all over the internet.

[Frank]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**No fan of telemarketers I.

But I’m not sure if the expressions of disgust above are at the general state of affairs, or an expression of a legal opinion different from the judge’s. If the latter, I’d be curious to know what your reasoning is.

• Rick **

Well, no legally oriented responses yet. And I’m not the one to give one either. But I have high hopes that the DMA cherry-picked a district, and cherry-picked a judge, and this will be overturned the second somebody else looks at it.

Failing that, I suspect something will be rammed through Congress PDQ. I hope.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Well of course they did.

And the ruling is actually pretty narrow. It’s pretty much just a procedural issue: the FTC can’t do it so Congress needs to tell the FCC to get on with it.

$10 says they do it quickly. I caught some generic rep on NPR this evening claiming they’d be able to get it done before they recessed for the year.

[Ike_Witt]

*Originally posted by Rico *
**Apparently so much that the number is now disconnected.
**

Yes, the number Dave listed is ‘out of service’, but the bastards still need to have workinkg phones.

ATA Legislative Office: Toll Free: (866) 500-4272
ATA Administrative Office: Toll Free: (866)) 500-4272

FTR, both numbers are available from the ATA website.