Is the telemarketing situation as bad in Canada as it is in the U.S.?
Especially since it creates demand for such services as caller ID.
Jonathan Chance
The receptionists are being paid to have their day ruined. That’s why it’s called a job. And clearly it is having an impact; they had to abandon the previous number.
gobear
More precisely, it will mean that the company is now paying someone $9.75/hr to listen to people complain. Sounds like a benefit to me.
Casey1505
I don’t see the connection. Do you think that your cell phone will interfere with your dial-up connection? Do you think that your landline will only work if you plug a phone into it?
It makes me feel much better knowing that they’re losing thousands (hopefully it’s that much, if not more) of dollars for all of those 800 number calls.
Petty, sure. But I still feel better.
And that receptionist? I’m sure if she/he gets overwhelmed, she/he can just–ahem–call for help.
That grants authorization to the FTC to collect fees to implement the list, not neccesarily to implement the list.
Found it…here’s the actual decision.
I don’t see why people are mad at the judge.
No. I know that a cell phone won’t interfere with dial-up, and I know that a land line will work without a phone. What I’m saying is, if I have to pay $xx.xx a month for a land line for the PC, then why not stick a phone in it, too? That wouldn’t make sense.
My wife and I would really benefit from cell phones, for different reasons, but we can’t really afford it right now. If there was an affordable way we can get a cable hookup for the PC (which would also take care of the TV), then we can lose the land line altogether, and life off a shared minutes cell plan. I want one or the other (preferably cable), but not both.
Heh. Looks like I called it. The obvious answer is to go multiple choice. Give people the option of choosing who can and can’t call. Those who want to be called by pollsters, charities, politicians or telemarketers or any combination of the above can do so.
There are no innocents in the telemarketing industry.
What about telemarketers that are part of a for-profit operation but represent themselves as charity?
I’m thinking of the most persistent callers in my area, who say that they are calling “on behalf of” Big Brothers, (it used to be Developmental Disabilities,) asking for donations of clothing or consumer goods.
They are actually Value Village – the single most profitable retail venture in Canada, (although they’re based in the U.S.) Great business model: solicit donations and resell them at prices way beyond what you’d expect to find at a genuine “thrift store.” They pass on a paltry 10% of the net profit to the charity that they use to con people into supplying them with inventory.
Is this a charity drive or a commercial call? They’re not exactly selling anything, but 90% of the benefit is for a commercial venture.
Could exemptions for charities open the door for token charity affiliation for all telemarketers? “I’m calling on behalf of Faith United Church! We can steamclean your drapes and 5% of the profit will go towards gift certificates for the homeless and destitute!”
So, Miller, what you’re saying is, “Phone them all. Let God sort them out.”?
How about, “The only good telemarketer is an ex-telemarketer”?
“They can have my headset when they pry it from my cold, dead ear!” Bumpersticker on telemarketer’s car?
Here, it would be considered a charity. The telemarketing shop I worked for was like that… they called on behalf of a nonprofit political organization to sell concert tickets. Some fraction of the ticket price was given to the nonprofit, but much or most of it stayed with the telemarketers.
They were exempt from certain rules because they were calling for the nonprofit - I think they only had to keep people on the DNC list for one year instead of a few years, for example.
IANAL, but I don’t see how the telemarketers have a legal argument. I could see that if the default was for a household to be placed on the do-not-call list, and people who wanted calls to have to opt in. But this list has people who are so dead-set against the calls that they will go through the effort (okay, it’s not much) to place their numbers on a list.
And, believe it or not, there are plenty of people who “feel bad” about turning down telemarketers. The NY Times did an article about it several weeks ago (too tired to link right now). The thing I remember best is a woman who would instead lie to the telemarketers (say she didn’t own her house to get out of buying alumninum siding). I was floored. The only creatures I know that have that little of a spine are sponges.
Your proposal is acceptable. (draw, aim, fire, retrieve headset, go for beer)
Sorry, but I don’t understand the judge’s reasoning. I can’t seem to select text in the document, but he cites a case saying:
“Ratification may be effected by appropriation acts. But the appropriation must plainly show a purpose to bestow the precise authority which is claimed.” He then goes on to say that Congress did not grant such authority. Well, please explain how one could be more plain than PL 108-10:
The precedent clearly says that appropriations are considered as bestowing authority. It’s clear what the appropriation was for, so what exactly is the argument? I don’t understand; do you and the judge think that the FTC was just supposed to collect the money and then do nothing with it?
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Isn’t there precedent as to free speech being situational? I’m pretty sure I don’t have the right to point a bullhorn in my neighbor’s window at 3:00 in the morning and scream at them. You don’t have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded building. This is about not cold-calling people at home who have asked not to be cold-called. This isn’t an issue of unequal First Amendment rights, because it’s got fuck-all to do with the First Amendment. I think the FTC needs to get some better lawyers.
So has the DMA repeated their often used lie that they “don’t want to call anyone that doesn’t want to be called” yet?
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I hate telemarketing, but I’m getting pretty sick of all the people that I’m hearing quoted saying “50 million people can’t be wrong” (Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana), or things along those lines, as a response to the judge’s decision. They keep waving around the number of people who have signed up for the list as if it’s relevant. I have no idea if the judge was right or wrong, but the number of registrants (and I’m one of them) means neither diddly nor squat in regard to whether or not it was legally implemented.