Guess I'm in the minority on this Do Not Call thing....

[vi5]

I don't like getting annoying telemarketing calls any more than anyone else. But something about the concept of politicians making this decision which seems to me to be pretty clear cut freedom of both speech and association.

I agree that it should be a law that if you get a call and ask to be removed from a companies mailing/call list that they should take you off. But something about the whole registry strikes me as not good. And the fact that one judged stayed the decision then Congress decided to override their decision and now a second judge has had to step in make the whole thing even more sketchy to me.

My bottom line is that yes, I get annoyed when I have to pick up the phone and say "not interested" and hang up. But in the big scheme of things it's a grand total of 2 minutes of my time tops. I'll take that over lots of people being unemployed.

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Who knows. It just seems like there are so many more important things to worry about and have our politicians and courts worrying about.

[NicoleM]

1. I have a right not to be solicited in my home.

The politicians are not banning the practice of telemarketing. They are giving you the option not to participate in it. Big difference.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

73. You do?

Prove it!

[TLM]

94. Simple really... it is harassment.

If I tell you not to call, and you call, that's harassment.


I have to pay for my phone, and my fax... they cost me money to own and to operate. When someone sends me spam faxes or calls me with spam calls, it costs me money and time.

I have a right to say no to that.

Just like I have a right to put up a no soliciting sign on my door to turn away door to door sales persons.

It is MY property, and I get to say if a sales person can use it to try and sell something to me.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

118. No it isn't. It's a phone call.

If it ever rises to the level of harassment, then you can call the cops and report harassment.

[bpilgrim]

130. a repeated unwanted nussiance is more than just 'a phone call'

will corp america learn from this experiance?

lets hope so but i say they fight their customers aka PROSPECTS

:hi:

peace

[Robin Hood]

Wrong.

I am paying for the phone line to my house. You do not have the right to use my paid phone line to solicit me for anything. It's no different than an intruder entering your home. Except that if you were an intruder, I would put a few holes in you.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

161. First you flail about with failed arguments, then you threaten violence?

Talk about being intellectually bankrupt. Jesus Christ. You guys are getting hysterical.

[Robin Hood]

177. WTF are you talking about?!!

You do not have the right to steal my number and call me. It is harrassment because it's un-solicited and there is no difference between that and an un-wanted, un-invited intruder.


Sticking up for social pariahs is both desperate and hysterical, and 50 million other people think so also.

[Cheswick2.0]

187. "us guys"? who are your guys Jerky?

?

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. It just seems like there are so many more important things to worry about

you mean like changing french fries to freedom fries?

[bryant69]

3. Yep

I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. Because any deviation from the official line (whatever that is) automatically indicates a rightwing nutjob.

[vi5]

10. What? Did I say that?

Because I disagree with the government getting involved in this issue I'm in favor of Freedom Fries? Sometimes logic takes a vacation on this board.

[maha]

4. It's like spam

Unchecked spam pretty much ruins the ability to use email. And phone solicitation is just about as bad. I have a tele-zapper that cut down the calls for a while, but now there are times I pull the phones out of the jacks because I can't stand ONE MORE SALES CALL.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

74. How many sales calls do you get in a day?

All these horror stories I'm hearing from people about getting "dozens" of sales calls per day strike me as being about as believable as the people who tell me it takes three weeks for a letter to reach across town, ie: exaggerated beyond all semblance to reality.

Say NO THANK YOU, and HANG UP! It's not rocket science!!!

[maha]

142. How many?

Oh, on a bad night three or four per hour. But if I'm home from a ten-hour workday and finally sitting down to dinner or TV time, I do not want ONE. Must less three or four per hour.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

145. So you claim you sometimes get between 12 and 16 calls per evening.

I doubt you get that many calls per week.

So I don't believe you, and I'll tell you why.

I've had this "no call list" argument with a number of friends and aquaintances in the real (offline) world. "Fucking telemarketers," one friend once railed at me. "I get like five or six calls a night from those fucking fucks!"

Yet here's the thing. I've eaten many a dinner and spent many an evening at his home. I once had to stay with him for two weeks when I was between appartments. And never - NOT ONCE - did he get a telemarketing call while I was there.

If what he was telling me about the "plague" of telemarketing calls he gets was true, I should have seen him get dozens, maybe even HUNDREDS, with all the time I've spent at his house. And yet, not one.

I suspect he complains about telemarketers because he got a few calls, heard some hot-head comedians go off on the subject, appropriated their phony outrage for himself, and ran with it.

And I suspect the same is true of most of the people arguing for a NO CALL list on this board.

[maha]

159. I don't call what you think.

Now you're pissin' me off, bud, and I'll tell you why.

What I meant is that on a bad night I'll get three or four calls within an hour, and that's true. I'm not saying that I get four calls an hour, hour after hour.

I rarely get home before 7:00, and they don't usually call after 9:00, so there's only a couple of hours during the week that I'm home for the nuisance calls. I'd say 5-6 nuisance calls in an evening is not unusual.

It's enough calls that it aggravates me to no end, to the point that I do not want the phone to ring, I do not want to pick up the phone, I do not want to say "no thank you." I do not want those calls, period. And it's absolutely true that I get aggravated enough after three or four calls close together that I pull the phone out of the phone jack to get some peace.

I suspect I get more nuisance calls than you do because I've lived at the same place for a while, my zip code and phone number suggest I live in an affluent area (I am not affluent myself), and I am a mortgage holder. That gets me on a lot of lists.

Maybe your friend has an updated telezapper that works. Whatever.

But don't you DARE suggest I'm only in favor of a dnc list because of something somebody said on TV. I'm in favor of a dnc list because of my personal experiences with nuisance calls.

[LearnedHand]

157. I get DOZENS per day, Jerky...

...and they are COMPUTERIZED calls, so I can't say "Do not call me" unless I listen to the ENTIRE STUPID RECORDING so I can find out where to CALL to put my name and number on their STUPID list.

Let me guess: you work in the industry! From me to you, please get a clue.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

160. I do not work in the industry.

And I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing you (or anybody else) get DOZENS of telemarketing calls per day. I, myself, get maybe two or three per week.

Your situation certainly isn't the norm.

[LearnedHand]

166. I can't do anything about what you believe...

...you might want to consult a therapist about that. You might also want to mention to the therapist that you have this illusion that your experience applies to EVERYONE and EVERY PLACE in America.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but you need to look at the logic of your statements: just because you don't experience it doesn't mean it's not true.

[Castilleja]

185. Well, I have gotten several in the couse of a day

On multiple days, and getting more so as the days went on. I hang up, but even doing that, I still have had to run to the phone form the shower, bathroom, etc. thinking it was my husband or someone I know. I have gotten 5 in one day from ATT alone. I never buy anything over the phone, and doubt I will. I AM in favor of this list, because it does not make the practice illegal, it allows p[eople to exercise a choice in the matter. If you don't mind these calls, DON'T get on the list. Simple as that. But to me and apparently 50 million others, they ARE.

[soupkitchen]

5. Make telemarketers pay the person they call

Five cents off the phone bill of every person they call. Then the market can regulate the business.

[sendero]

11. that is a very good idea....

... but I would still like to have the ability to opt out.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

75. ...for me to poop on!

Say NO THANK YOU, and HANG UP! It's not rocket science.

[yoghurt]

189. "just say no" just doesn't work

What you do say is this "please put me on your do not call list".
You do not want to get *off* their list, but *on* the *right* list.

Junkbusters is a great resource.
http://www.junkbusters.com/telemarketing.html

Your anti-telemarketing script. "Telemarketers always use a script, why shouldn't you?"
http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html

Years of patient "put me on the do-not-call list" has cut down on these anoyances tremendously. I am on the Massachesetts list and that has helped too. I hardly ever get any more calls.

I don't know what to do about the non-human recorded telemarketing though. I understand that it's illegal, but how to enforce?

It's *not* a free speech issue. They can talk all they want. Free speech doesn't mean I have to listen. I don't want them using the phone line *which* *I* *pay* *for*. In legalese it's called "trespass to chattel". I don't authorize them to use my equipment for their purposes.

[srubick]

77. extra income from telemarketers

I have been sending this message to every Senator and Representative for months.
Get the government out of this issue and let the market rule.
All advertiseing, tv, radio, press, mailing, billboards, etal, have rates set for the people using them. We should all have the same rights to charge for our services and private property.
We should have the right to charge anyone wanting to come into our homes for the purpose of promoting a product.
It should not be very hard to build a program that would identify and instantly bill any caller.

[sendero]

6. nobody...

.... is going to MAKE you add your number to the registry. Puhleease.

[FlaGranny]

7. I agree there are more important things.

I disagree that politicians are making the decision. They have been listening to the recipients of the calls, the vast majority of which have asked the politicians to help. It's one of the purest examples of the government doing the people's business.

Now, if we could only get them to listen to us about the more important things.

About your 2 minutes per call - 20 calls a day adds up to 40 minutes a day. I have received 20 solicitation calls in one day.

[ixion]

8. if it IS about free speech

then why isn't this same veracity being applied to ALL forms of free speech, LIKE DISSENT? People have been attacking those of us who dissent to the point where it is no longer acceptable to question the motives of the boy king in certain circles, and yet the courts and the congress don't seem too concerned about that.

Free Speech? C'mon... there is a huge difference between being able to speak your mind and harassing people with unsolicited sales calls in their own home.

[vi5]

9. Huh? When did I say I was against dissent?

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger advocate for free speech than me. I'm just talking about this particular issue.

I don't see where one has to do with the other.

[ixion]

137. not you, vi5

I was referring to the judge in this case... sorry, should have been more specific. :hi:

[Mairead]

21. Right! Commercial speech is *protected*

It's that nasty political speech that should be regulated!

[proghead]

97. I dont see what the problem is...

If you don't want calls I see no reasons for not being able to block them.

The way I see it is that by putting yourself on the list you're HELPING telemarketers. That way they don't call people who do not want to deal with them.

[im4edwards]

192. its commercial. its got nothing to do with free speech

and the ones complaining don't care a lick about the jobs (and I seriously doubt that any jobs are in peril just for this, who wouldn't want to eliminate the calls that are not going to be productive in favor of more time with productive calls ?).

They don't want to spend the money to change the way they operate. Pure and simple.

[Skittles]

12. you are not alone, vi5

I am shocked by the number of DUers who know, KNOW this government cannot be trusted, yet think Bush Inc. is actually interested in preventing corporations from selling their wares over the phones. SCAM, PEOPLE.

[PDittie]

13. No, you're not...

Well, yes we are of course, but most of those people who find themselves so imposed upon by their telephone ringing seem to be overlooking a few points.

First, this legislation is going to cost the economy tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs.

(That may, perversely, be a good thing if it hastens Whistle-Ass' demise...)

The larger point is that when a telemarketer loses their job...where do they turn?

Does their career path's next stop include a hairnet?

(I was kind of amused by the tinfoil hatters' objections to calling up Uncle Sam and volunteering your phone number. Crisco John just got a fresh, up-to-date, fifty-million member database. Now what might he do with that?)

At any rate, Caller ID screens my calls and if it's someone I don't know or don't want to talk to then they're talking to Callnotes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Loss of jobs

I'm sorry if they lose their jobs, but they have no inherent right to call me at my home. If that costs them their job, they need to retrain.

[northzax]

28. yes, actually, they do have that right

when you chose to have a listed telephone number, you placed your number in the public domain. Now if you have an unlisted number, you have a legitimate gripe, but by publishing it in the white pages you give everyone the right to use it, once, until you tell them specifically to stop. If I can go to the local library and look you up, why can't Bob's towing?

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Harassment

No they do not have the right to intrude in my life. No rights are absolute.

Again, why should I have to pay to be bothered.

Oh, as an aside, unlisted numbers get called as well. They don't use phone books, they use autodialers.

[northzax]

40. if your number is unlisted

they are breaking the law. deal with it. and it's not harrassment if they call once. if the same company calls multiple times after you tell them not too, that is harrassment. if i come to your door and try to sell you a vacuum, and you tell me to leave, and I come back the next day, that is harrassment. the first visit is not, I'm afraid.

[MadHound]

47. It is no longer a matter of whether or not your phone number is listed

What with computer dialing and other technological innovations, having an unlisted number is no longer a guarantee that you won't be called. Most telephone rooms now dial ALL numbers, ie 864-0000, 864-0001 etc. With computer dialers they can do this dialing in multiples, and the first person who answers gets the spiel. That is why many of us have one or two rings these days, pick up the phone and nobody is there.

And I disagree, it is not a matter of free speech. Does having your number in the phone book give me the right to call you up and harass you? Sorry, but the right to free speech ends when you are harassing somebody. A national registry is simply a way of determining those people with a low tolerance for harassment. Besides, I would think that telemarketers would welcome this registry, for I imagine that a very high percentage of those who register don't buy anything from telemarketers, thus now the industry doesn't have to waste their time and money calling a number where they would be getting refused anyway.

Plus I find it interesting that there are people that are defending an industry that is rife with fraud and abuse. Think how many older and/or confused people will be protected from dishonest hucksters if they are on the DNC list.

[northzax]

58. again

the first call is not harrassment. the second call, after telling someone not to call you again is harrassment, but the first one is not. you're in a bar. I ask you to dance. you say no. I walk away. is that harrassment? not in my book. if I keep pestering you, then it is harrassment. having people call you is part of the price of having a telephone. don't like it? don't have a phone. or pay for caller id, etc, to remove those calls. I have the right to call you until you tell me not to, just like I have the right to knock on your door until you tell me not to. you also have the right not to answer your door, or not answer your phone. why is this so tough?

[MadHound]

67. But, if people continue to approach me

Asking me to dance, I have every right to put up a sign saying "No dance for anyone". One call a month may not be harrasment, but calling on an increasingly frequent basis is. I already have to pay to have an unlisted number, now you're saying I should have to pay for caller ID so as not to be harrassed? Now the telemarketers are finding ways around that, will I have to pay even more for the next technological innovation(call zappers etc.)? Sorry, but I cry bullshit.

And yet here you are, defending the idea that a corporation has the right to free speech, while I as an individual don't have the right to tell them to leave me alone. Whose free speech right is pre-eminent, a real live human beings' or an entity composed of paper? You are also defending an industry that makes a substantial part of it's money by swindling the old and/or confused(yes, I've done a stint or two as a telemarketer, I know how the game is played). How very telling.

[northzax]

78. of course you have the right to tell them to leave you alone

pick up the phone and tell them to leave you alone. register with any of the multiple of corporate no-call lists.

and yes, I defend the rights of people AND corporations. I even defend the rights of republicans, who prey on the weak, angry and simpleminded, to adversise.

any corporation that makes it's money by swindling people should be shut down. simple as that. and yet you are willing to destroy an entire industry (that makes money, by the way, else it wouldn't happen) from existing simply because it annoys you. well you know what? every time I walk outside, my asthma is inflamed by exhaust fumes. I think I should be able to ban automobiles from coming within 100 feet of me. it annoys me that people drive yellow cars, distracts me while I am operating my own private vehicle, ban them. it annoys me that ann coulter gets to talk on my television, ban her. it annoys me that overweight people take up two seats at the theatre. ban them. it annoys me when short people make jokes about my height, ban them. it annoys me when i can see people's underwear. ban that as well. ooh, and people speaking French. how annoying is that? banned. and don't get me started on the Jehovah's Witnesses...

see where it goes? the majority cannot, I repeat cannot, take away the rights of the minority, even a corporation, simply because it annoys them.

[MadHound]

90. Unfortunatly, it seems that corporations(a non living entity)

Are recieving more rights than living breathing human beings. You know, things like no limit soft money donations, etc etc.
And as far as "destroying a whole industry" goes, well get your hyperbole under control there. I repeat my point in a previous post, it would probably be an enormous benefit to the telemarketing industry to have a list of people who don't wish to do business with them, it would save them time and money.

And you still haven't answered the question of why I should have to pay more and more simply not to be harrassed over the phone. Is that right? Is that ethical? And what about my right to free speech insomuch that by signing onto the DNC list I am telling the whole industry NO. What, I don't have the right to speak to large groups of people? I am limited to having to speak with them one by one?

And no, it is simply not a matter of annoyance. For a lot of people, especially those who work at home, time = money. Therefore constant phone calls to sell them crap is costing them money(especially if its a WATS line or some such other pay per call number).

And we're not talking about an isolated company that is swindling people here. We are talking about an industry wide problem that is costing many many people millions of dollars. I think that anything that will help prevent that is a good idea.

Yet you are still defending the rights of a paper entity(one that supposedly we humans are supposed to control, go look in your economic law books) over the majority rights of living breathing people. Boy, I'm glad you're not in charge of this democracy. Unfortunatly it seems like many with your mind-set are.

[northzax]

101. hm, so what you are saying

is that you, a citizen, are incapable of defending your time and property. if someone calls you repeatedly, despite your request not to, they ARE BREAKING THE LAW. do you report them? if someone calls you on a WATS line, bill them for the time. that's your responsibilty as a consumer. if someone is harrassing you, deal with it. in fact, the industry already has these lists. anyone who wants out can get out. why is government getting involved, spending my tax dollars so you don't get inconvenienced? anyone who wants the government to stop people calling them should be paying for the service. I don't see why I have to subsidize you in this manner. you are unwilling to pay more for protection, but you think I should pay for your protection? how absurd.

[DrGonzoLives]

103. Oh, so now we pay for "protection"

I see. I should have to pay to keep people from buying and selling my personal information. I should pay to keep people from calling me. This has an analogy, you know, it's called racketeering.

Yes, let's let corporations get into the extortion racket. That will work real well.

[northzax]

111. no you shoulnd't have to pay

but if you do business with companies that sell your information, then guess what? they're going to sell it. ask before you give information out. if you don't then you get what you deserve. before you give someone your phone number, ask what they're doing with it. ask if they sell or share numbers. if they say 'yes' then DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. sheesh, Dr. G, I figured you of all people would appreciate the need to take some personal responsiblity here. there is no need to pay to keep people from calling you. in fact you pay to enable people to call you, it's that check you write to verizon each month. don't want people to use your telephone? don't have one. tell them they aren't welcome. screen your calls. you don't answer the door without looking through the keyhole, do you?
anyone who buys and sells your personal information got it from somewhere. at some point, you gave that information to someone. who then sold it. and they most likely told you ahead of time that they were going to do that. but I guess it's too much to ask to have people take responsibility for themselves here. THERE ARE ALREADY NO-CALL LISTS. PAID FOR BY COMPANIES. isn't that better than having the government do it?

[Chovexani]

115. Yes, there are no-call lists

And guess what? A lot of these companies totally disregard them. Don't believe me? Try watching your local consumer reporter when they have a story about this. I also know this from personal experience, having gotten repeat calls from companies that I stated I wanted no part of. Just yesterday I got yet *another* call from Sears about home siding, when I have told them at least 10 times to put me on their do not call list. These lists have no teeth, and there's no real incentive for the company to abide by it.

There was a telemarketing company that was notorious for this kind of behavior, and the local consumer reporter on WNBC did several reports on it. Eventually it ended up getting slapped with an enormous fine, only thanks to the fact that NY is one of the states with a do not call list and the state got after the creeps. You've got to hit these people it hurts, and money is the only language they seem to understand.

[MadHound]

105. Thank you for defining what a law is.

That is exactly what you did, and that is what people are doing, they are "dealing with it" co-operatively by authorizing their Congress-folk to pass this law. Apparently the majority of the people want this law, and apparently the majority of people are willing to pony up the money for this law. We should not give in to the tyranny of the minority, just because they don't want to pay for it. The majority of us want this to happen. What part of democratic republic do you not understand? :shrug:

[northzax]

112. thanks for making Madison's point

about the tyranny of the majority for me. I'm so glad that you are willing to go along with the majority, as long as you are in it. I bet I can convince the majority of people in my community to pass a law legalizing child pornography, if I phrase it right. Alright, bring on the kiddie porn, after all, the majority wants it.

and school prayer. all children should pray to the christian god every day. after all, the majority consistently says that's what they want. and the majority of people oppose gay marriage. and abortion. and the civil rights act. and equal rights for women. and affirmative action.

you take your majority on this one, and I'll take my majority on all the rest. deal? after all, this is a democratic republic, and majority rules, right?

oh, and by the way, there are 300,000,000 people in this country. 50 million is hardly a majority, by any math.

[MadHound]

116. Nice straw man there, complete with hat and everything

But like all straw men, he does nothing

Look, we all have to abide by laws that we don't like, the present administration is a prime example. However there are things that counteract the tyranny of the majority, and one of these is the Constitution. However, while the constitution grants such rights to humans, it does not grant them to non-humans(otherwise PETA would be having a heyday with your meat eating self). Where in the constitution does it grant corporattions supernumenary rights above humans? IT DOESN"T. Corporations are financial tools created by humans, controlled by humans, and can be disbanded by humans. Granting corporations the right of free speech makes as much sense as giving my sledgehammer the same right. Once again this has been upheld in courts, regarding issues such as billboard regulations, the Fairness Doctrine, etc etc. Granted, this concept has been slipping in the past twenty years, but it is still in force, and corporations should abide by it. Are you really in favor of corporations having as many or more rights than you?

And yes, fifty million people signed up for this list. That is not a good indication of how many people were in favor of this law. I myself am in favor of this law, but I didn't sign up for the list. Why, because my state already has such a law, and I'm going to be moving here in a few weeks and will sign up my new number instead. What counts, in this democratic republic, is that enough people(you and me) persuaded their Congress-folk that they wanted this law passed. Thus these Congress people voted in favor of it. And while you think it might be tyranny, it doesn't violate such essential documents such as the Constitution(though corporations, of course, are going to argue otherwise). Thus, meeting those standards, it becomes law. You don't like, hey, you're free to work towards overturning it. That is the beauty about how our government works.

Oh, and in regards to your strawman. Yes, you are free to pray to your christian god, nobody says you are not. You are even free to work towards trying to force prayer in school(Ralph Reed and Jerry Falwell will welcome you with open arms). But you would have to fight the majority of people in this country to get it done AND you would have to convince one the those checks and balances I was speaking of earlier, the Supreme Court, that your law wasn't a violation of seperation of church and state. Good luck.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

119. What if the majority wanted to ethnically cleanse Jews from the USA?

Would that be the right thing to do?

[MadHound]

147. Ooo, and it is another strawman, complete with overalls and a face

Just for your information, since you wish to play dumb, I think the Constitution would apply here. Sheesh.

Next time come up with a real arguement OK.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

149. There are constitutional issues here, as well.

x

[MadHound]

153. Yes, there are, and we've already gone over them

Read some of the previous posts. We've discussed that corporations have no inherent rights, that we have rights as humans to say no, etc. etc.

You really need to read before posting, it would answer a lot of your questions.

[MadHound]

104. And another point

Laws against "annoyance" issues are written and passed all of the time. Anti-smoking laws, anti-noise laws, anti-billboard laws, in fact a great deal of zoning law is nothing more than ruling against "annoyances". The DNC is simply another in a long line. Tell you what, if the DNC doesn't go through, can I come over and set up a smoking billboard that plays loud music 24/7 in front of your residence? After all, it would only be an "annoyance"

[sybylla]

93. Speaking of the tyranny of the majority

Why sir, do you have the right to earn a living off of harassing people who have asked not to be harassed? This is about people v. corporations, not people v. people. You have skewed the entire arguement in the wrong direction.

And don't give me the line that the first call isn't harassment. If telemarketers had been playing by the rules for years, then people wouldn't be so up in arm. When, after the first call, we ask to be put on the list and still get calls, corporations are violating the law, a law that is impossible to enforce. The DNC puts the power behind the people to stop the harassment and prevent future bad players from doing the same.

If the telemarketing industry had thought once about policing themselves instead of making every dime they could off of harassing citizens and small businesses, they wouldn't be in this pickle right now.

Your resentment is displaced in my book. Take your arguement to the corporations and see if they listen to you any better than they have been listening to the citizens of this country.

[northzax]

102. a law that is impossible to enforce

and this one is going to work wonders, huh? what are you going to do if someone calls you that you weren't doing before? sue them? why aren't you doing that already?

wahh, I can't defend myself, please mr. congressman, can you protect me from the big bad telemarketers?

[sybylla]

110. Yep, they get reported

The Wisconsin Department of Ag, Trade and Comsumer Protection takes on all comers and already this year have sent the justice department after several telemarketing companies who violated the DNC list and won some serious fines for infringement.

You see, this law puts the big bad gov on our side for a change, where it belongs.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

120. It's not harrassment. It's a phone call. Say NO THANK YOU, and HANG UP.

It's not rocket science.

(I'm gonna go ahead and keep repeating that)

[sybylla]

150. repeat it all you want.

methinks thee doth protest too much

[im4edwards]

199. I'm glad your day is so carefree that you have the time

but I don't and you would not believe how many calls I got, plus I'd like to stop spending money every month to the phone service to block them. I shouldn't have to pay for a security guard from soliciters.

[FlaGranny]

89. I have never had a "listed" phone

number - that makes no difference at all. Up to 20 calls a day to an unlisted number. Most of the time, it's not even a person calling, it's a computer. PBA has been told to stop calling me about 50 times. They still call, but I no longer answer. Of course, they are a "charitable" organization so they get away with it. In the meantime it costs me about $150 a year to protect myself from them.

[northzax]

98. and the no-call list won't make a difference

since charitable organizations are exempt.

[sybylla]

108. WRONG!

Been on Wisconsin's DNC list for all of 2003 which has exemptions only for charitable and political orgs. My number of calls dropped from 5-10 per day to 1-2 per week.

Serious decline, wouldn't you say?

[bpilgrim]

125. not to mention the FINES that can be applied to the companies that violate

the RULES ;->

peace

[LynneSin]

36. Some of the people telemarketing are those who had already loss their jobs

And are taking anything they can find in order to get the bills paid. Believe me, I've telemarketed but never last very long doing so. I never went to college for telemarketing, I never took night classes to be a telemarketer heck I can honestly say I was never telemarketing certified. But I had loss the job I got from my college training because of the first Bush Sr. recession and I either had to find a job or move home with my mother. (and believe me, the job market was even worse in her area)

But it helped pay the bills in order to get the training I needed in order to get a better job. BTW, free training is hard to find.

I have not added my name to the DNC list. Personally I never answer my home phone number therefore I'm usually not bothered by telemarketers. PLUS before I had a cell phone I had the callerid on the box and I would screen through those calls that didn't have a name appear. AND before caller ID, I just screen calls through the answering machine.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

76. YOU have no inherent right NOT to be called at home.

That right simply does not exist, so maybe you should stop claiming it.

Say NO THANK YOU, and HANG UP! It's not rocket science!

[FlaGranny]

99. How would you like to be working at home

on a production basis, only getting paid for what work you produce, and get a call every half hour. Even if you don't answer the phone, you have to stop what you're doing to see who's calling. It could be the office regarding stat work. I would estimate that every time that has happened to me it has cost me about 25 cents. So it easily costs me money to be called, in addition to the amount it costs me to screen those calls. I don't even want to think about what it would cost me to answer all those calls if I didn't have caller ID and privacy director. Telemarketers indirectly have cost me personally about $250 a year. And that's when I don't answer the phone!! Is anyone suggesting this is just a sort of "tax" I should be happy to pay for the privilege of an unlisted telephone?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

117. I simply don't believe that you get 48 telemarketing calls per day.

Once again, as with file-sharing proponants, people are spewing lies to try and bolster their side of the argument. It's frankly sickening.

[FlaGranny]

158. Whoever said I got 48 calls a day?

I've said before I've gotten from 10 up to 20 a day. I pay about $150 for my caller ID and Privacy Director a year, plus lost time from work. I figure I've lost about $100 from lost production time in a year from telemarketing calls and only because I don't answer them. Thus, it costs me up to $250 a year. With my Privacy Director I have already received three computer calls TODAY. I had to stop work to see who was calling. Then later, when I have the time, I have to take the time to delete those messages from my service. I haven't spewed any lies. I am NOT a file-sharing proponent, but I fail to see what file-sharing has to do with telemarketing. That's a stretch isn't it?

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

162. "...get a call every half hour..." There are 48 half-hours in a day.

I'm simply pointing out the hyperbole being used in the DNC side's arguments.

[sybylla]

169. yeah, and 2+2=5

Come on Jerky, talk about hyperbole. I'm sure I don't have to tell you what happens when you ASSume and cast aspersion on another's experiences.

Everyone else here knew what FlaGranny was saying. You are certainly demonstrating a fine skill at debating.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

176. No, but 2x24=48

x

[sybylla]

179. I see you've figured out how to edit

Congratulations! Now I'm waiting for you to respond to the rest of my post. Or is hyperbole your only suit.

[Nikia]

188. Before no call in Wisconsin my husband got several calls

He works mostly from home. Telemarkets seem to call more during the day if they know that you are going to be home. He usually got 5-10 of those calls while trying to work every day.

[im4edwards]

196. Don't fall for this

what it would mean is better time to talk with interested parties. It will make them BETTER salespeople and perform better for the client. My wife did this for a bit and it was slavedriver stuff, had to get the calls in to hit the quotas so sales became secondary as noone expected a large percentage of successful calls.

[sybylla]

23. Are you referring to the telemarketing jobs that are all going to India?

Even the GOP is using Indian telemarketing firms for their business now. What jobs are you referring to? Those cushy exec jobs that might be left behind here?

And the second ruling on the DNC list claimed it violated the rights of free speech of corporations. Well, I'm sorry. The right to free speech of corporations ends on my property. I pay for my phone, they don't. I'm already paying $8 a month just to avoid them. Why should I have to pay anything? Soon, having a phone number will be like having an e-mail address. You will have to go through the expense and hassle of changing it once a year to avoid constant interruption of your day.

Sorry, my time at my business and with my family is far more important. Corporate rights to free speech must end at my property line.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Minority, Yes. Not Alone

And, my reasons are essentially the same as yours. Just people trying to do a job.

And, the privacy issue, to me, is a canard. One never HAS to answer the phone. And, one can choose not to even have one if one values privacy enough.

Lastly, there are options, although at a cost. Privacy Manager and Caller ID, (both of which we have), pretty much eliminate the problem. It's a few bucks a month, i admit. But, legislating this issue is something i'd rather not see.
The Professor

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Why should I have to pay

To keep you from bothering me? And, it doesn't stop you from doing so, it just means I don't answer.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. Not The Most Persausive Argument, Muddle

You have your opinion, i have mine. I made mine abundantly clear as well as my reasoning. If you choose to have a different take, that is certainly your right.

The right to choose already exists. No further legislation is necessary. I explained why already. End of debate.
The Professor

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Fortunately

Congress agrees with me and that means sooner or later your side will be stopped.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Only one result

So naturally there is competition. You have a thin skin, I suggest you thicken it.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

81. oh goodie

and congress agreed that invading Iraq was a good idea. good thing they stepped in and stopped our side, huh?

might don't make right.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

123. Why are you so pompous and adversarial?

All the time?

[noiretextatique]

183. don't know if it's all the time

but your post reeks of the pot calling the kettle black. haven't you accused a few posters of lying in this thread?

[PDittie]

18. Well said, Professor

I might start another thread since this digresses, but does everyone feel the same way about Spam in their e-inbox as they do about telemarketing calls? how about junk mail? I don't hear nearly the complaints about this as I used to...

I understand there's legislation pending in California to ban unsolicited commercial e-mail.

I tend to be opposed to Spam (does anyone actually like it?) mostly because it's far more ubiquitous and offensive in nature, but it's much simpler to discard...

[FlaGranny]

100. No spam anymore - my ISP filters it out.

I'm very happy about that.

[Ruby Newsbee]

17. It's more than annoying, it's invasion.

2 minutes? I don't even give them that. How many calls a day do you receive? I average about 10 a day. Now when they call.. and it's usually the same ones every day, I just start banging the phone on the countertop as they're talking until they hang up.

[PDittie]

22. Gotta disagree with the "invasion" characterization

If this bothers you so much, why don't you consider a cell phone? it would very likely be less expensive than a land line, especially if you make just a few LD calls in a month.

Or just take a walk and get some fresh air, for goodness' sake.

People seem to get all lathered up about this. It's not worth elevating my blood pressure...

[Ruby Newsbee]

26. I have two land lines and a Cell

mostly used for business purposes. It's invasion when the same company calls you every damn day.. and they call my cell phone also! They aren't just random telemarketers, I've done business with these companies. Have you ever expected an important phone call any minute only to get the telemarketing auto recording? THEY DON'T HANG UP and you can't get them off of your line until the schpeel is over no matter how many times you hang up.

I get plenty of fresh air, thank you. Now that we've gotten my personal habits out of the way, I assume we can commense to staying on topic? I'm happy for your lower blood pressure, but realizing we're on a bulletin board posting on a subject of interest is hardly worth mentioning elevated blood pressure, unless posting affects you that way, I suppose.

[mbali]

29. Way too much trouble

Why should consumers have to pay for special phone services or leave their homes to get away from telemarketers?

But even worse than telephone calls are the spam faxes I keep receiving now. It's one thing to call me - although it's annoying, I can hang up, not answer, scream at them, etc. But telemarket faxes cost ME money! They use my paper and my ink and tie up my phone lines to get a message to me that I do not want. I find that much more of an imposition.

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Spam faxes

I actually think there are laws about this, but you have to check it out.

[northzax]

30. don't like it?

don't do business with those companies. They cannot call a mobile phone unless you tell them they can. tell any company you work with that if you get an unsolicited sales call from them, you will never work with them again. if they want your business, they'll drop you from their lists. why is that so hard?

[Ruby Newsbee]

44. good suggestions, but that doesn't work

The most annoying telemarketer was our credit card company. We gave them the Cell number when signing on with them before we had the two land lines installed for business purposes. They sold our number to other companies. We asked them to stop calling, then we cancelled our credit card and used another. No amount of pleading or asking or threatening stops them.

[northzax]

51. you know, right

that telemarketers are not allowed to call mobile phones? I have had a cell as my primary phone for almost seven years and have never, I repeat NEVER received a sales call on it. even my credit card companies don't call me with sales pitches (for things like insurance, and what not) nor do their partners. maybe I'm the serious exception, but I have never received one. and I would get several a day on my vesitigal land line before spiking it.

[Ruby Newsbee]

55. I didn't know that.

I thought they were not allowed to get access to cell numbers, but once you've given it to them (out of ignorance on our part) they seem to have freedom to call it.

If they're breaking a law by calling our Cell, I'd like to know and put an end to them once and for all.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

80. Most telemarketing "horror stories" are bullshit.

You just caught a good one.

[Ruby Newsbee]

87. I suppose you're insinuating that I'm a liar?

Well, I'm not. So there.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

121. Pretty much. But really, you're just going with the flow...

...of bad argumentation and hyperbolous over-reaction to what amounts to a great big NOTHING of a problem.

[Ruby Newsbee]

124. I think you're just desperate

to argue with someone on personal level. Find another player.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

140. You've got me wrong, but okay.

Bye!

[fedupwithbush]

19. A lot of telemarketing companies

don't respect the do-not-call list request individually. I know. I also hate to admit I worked for one company for a month while I was in school. I hated it. We were encouraged? to pressure people to buy something they neither wanted nor could afford. Why do you think they target the elderly?

But back on subject. I subscribed to the Kansas do-not-call list. It has worked great. I was getting 5 to 15! calls a day. And the ones that are really irritating are the taped calls where you can't even tell them to put you on their do-not-call list. I know about the ability to take them to small claims court. But with so many calls, what am I, a perpetual inhabitant of that court? I had multiple calls from the same companies. I always asked to be put on their do-not-call lists. They would call back sometimes the same day! One particular day I was called 4 times by the same company by different people! When I would threaten to turn them in the party line was "That was a different operator." I do not have caller id. Why should I have to pay to keep these people from calling me?

One thing that does bother me about the federal do-not-call list is this. Many states have instituted their own list. The telemarketers have to buy the list of phone numbers to not call from our state. There is a fine if they are turned in. The federal law is just one more revenue stealing example. Let the states enforce it and make a few bucks from the lists. We are already having our taxes raised because the Bush Co. lowered them at the federal level so much for the rich.

[punpirate]

20. You are taking this the wrong way, I believe....

You are assuming it is the right of other people to bother you incessantly because you have a phone number. You pay for the phone service.

The only way to eliminate bothersome and intrusive calls is to have a registry of numbers that cannot be called. How the hell else does a telemarketer know not to call you unless there is a list of numbers not to be called and a law which puts them at financial risk for ignoring that list?

You may get one or two calls a week. There are people in some areas of the country that get one hundred, and half of those at dinner.

It's your life, and you're making excuses for other people interrupting that life of yours. If the telemarketers have their way, in court, or in Congress, you are their prey, forever.

Bulk advertisers waste time, money and resources. They are leeches, and as long as they are permitted by law to engage in what they do, they will continue to suck up large amounts of resources which are subsidized by law. If each spammer had to pay an ISP for sending unwanted mail through that ISP, they couldn't afford it. If every bulk mailer had to put a first-class stamp on their crap that arrives in your mailbox every day, they wouldn't do it, because they couldn't afford it. If every telemarketer had to pay the equivalent of your phone bill in order to call you twelve goddamned times a day, they couldn't afford it.

They are subsidized in their efforts by current law, and you are not. Your only defense against unwanted interruptions is no-call, no-spam, no-bulk mail laws, and the registries that enable those laws.

Your name, address, phone number and email are already known--that's how the crap gets to you. How does having a registry change that?

On edit, I should add that, with regard to jobs, who are the people engaged in such efforts? Out-of-work or unskilled people who are at the mercy of the marketplace, and it need not be that way. Such operations are not called boiler rooms for nothing. They are low-paying, exploitive and highly stressful places in which to work. Few people find such conditions either to their liking or good for them. Saying, "well, it's a job" is hardly the right answer.

Telemarketers, spammers and bulk mailers prey on the weakest and least informed in society. To allow them to do that, at the expense of your time and money, is ill-advised.

Cheers.

[PDittie]

25. pun, you're full of over-reaction and hyperbole , there

"bother you incessantly"? I'm sure there's some 'cessant' in there...

"intrusive"? Just don't answer the phone.

"leeches"? This sounds as if someone convinced your mother to buy aluminum siding for her brick home.

Since we're extrapolating wildly let me just add that if you think putting 50,000 telemarketers out of work is a good thing for your lifestyle then don't complain when they're dealing, pimping, whoring, and breaking into homes in your neighborhood.

I say let them call. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to answer the phone.

[punpirate]

38. Yeah, right....

"'intrusive'? Just don't answer the phone."

What if it's your mother?

"'leeches'? This sounds as if someone convinced your mother to buy aluminum siding for her brick home."

Nope... just an alcohol-dementia-inflicted uncle who bought $20K worth of windows and burglar alarms for a house worth $10K and whose children spent hundreds of hours fighting off his creditors when he died and they thought they could get the land because of the debt.

"Since we're extrapolating wildly let me just add that if you think putting 50,000 telemarketers out of work is a good thing for your lifestyle then don't complain when they're dealing, pimping, whoring, and breaking into homes in your neighborhood."

How about a society providing them good jobs? Guess we've forgotten how to do that, huh?

"I say let them call. Nobody is forcing you or anyone else to answer the phone."

_I_ pay for the use of that phone, not them. It's for my use, as I see fit, not them.

Defend a bad system, and be buried by it.

Cheers.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

82. Amen! Say NO THANK YOU and HANG UP. It's not rocket science.

People get their titties in a twist over the dumbest things.

[bpilgrim]

128. It's the LAW... DON'T CALL.

It's not rocket science. ;->

anyways, theres bigger fish to fry. besides the telemarketers have no one to blame but themselves and their bad habits.

:hi:

peace

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

141. But it's NOT the law.

And not being a telemarketer, I DON'T call!

[sybylla]

182. It is the law

If you ask telemarketers not to call you, they, by law are supposed to place you on their inhouse DNC list and by law cannot call you for a specified time. Unfortunatly, many businesses violate this law on a regular basis. Even telemarketers attest to this.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

24. I think some of you misunderstand vi5's point..

The point is why is our government SOOOOOO amazingly interested in passing this thing and signing people up.

?

Since when has your goverment in the last.. whenever.. given two shits about caring for you and LISTENING to the constituents.

Why are they acting like some judge is the death of the world because he ruled against the 'list'?
They seem 100 times more interested and cared about this 'list' rather than why we went to war illegally.

Not to be tinfoil, but there has to be some alterior motive of our wonderful big brother.


TWL

[vi5]

34. Thank you....and I might add there's so much concern...

About unemployment and the poor people who are out of jobs because of Bush* (which I agree with and share concern over). I tend to think a lot of people seem to care about the unemployed as long as those people getting employment doesn't infringe on us in any way shape or form.

My guess is that some of these people will be the first ones on here trumpeting about how horrible it is that the unemployment rate went up in October or November or December when all of these people get laid off.

[sybylla]

45. Perhaps it is because they have gotten the message

Wisconsin started it's DNC list in January and allowed people to call in and sign up for a couple of months before it started. By April, more than half the phones in the state were signed up on the list. HALF! And that was in just a few months. This is one place where politicans have figured out that being in the telemarketers pockets will only hurt them.

I'm sorry if you don't get it but I am exceedingly thankful that politicians do.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

49. They care about you?

I don't see it. Although I dislike telemarketing calls, I never stewed around the house thinking, "Damn politicians and their pandering to the telemarketing industry!!! If only they would be on the side of the people! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!"

We are living in a time when our government hasn't done DIDDLY SHIT to benefit the common man and they wage illegal wars for the profits of our buddies. All we get in return is more lies. Now we are supposed to feel warm and fuzzy inside because they are spending their time fighting tooth and nail to pass some worthless DNC list?

Sorry, don't get it. Telemarketing calls are an annoyance but something that bears little weight in these times.

TWL

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Wrong

This IS something that matters to Americans. They have voted in a huge way for this. It might not matter to you, but it does to the rest of us.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

57. Are you serious?

If so I can see why 'we' are where 'we' are.

I like this word: Priority

Sure if there weren't illegal wars, illegal pResidents, state-run media, environmental destruction, death for oil, polticians making money off of dead americans. If there was none of that I might say, ok its time to move on to some other things that need a lookin' at.

But last time I checked there was a REALLY big list of other shit that needs to be taken care of around here. Why is it some great thing that our 'elected' leaders are using energy and time to address this and make it such a big deal?



TWL

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Someone once said

That all politics are local.

This issue impacts every single American household every day and often several times a day. We want it dealt with.

That doesn't exclude the other issues, it is simply one more.

[LearnedHand]

165. I agree, TWL, in one respect:

The DNC list is a GREAT idea; I signed up for it because my state doesn't offer one (I once lived in a state that DID, and it was a monumental SUCCESS!!!)

However, politicians DO NOT seem to care about the really big things you pointed out. And to ARE pandering to the public in this matter because it doesn't cost them points with some IMPORTANT industry.

AND (puts cynical hat on), this DNC list is something they can use in their re-elect campaigsn to say, "See, we DO listen to you and we DO care about what you say!"

Nevertheless, I signed up for the national DNC list because they made it available. If it's crumbs from the table, so be it.

But I'm not giving up my fight to make them listen to the REALLY IMPORTANT THINGS!!!

(Sorry for the rather scattered thoughts, there.)

[sybylla]

60. Care about me? No

Care about my vote? YES

That is all the average politician cares about anyway. And there is no good way for them to spin being against the DNC list. When half the phone numbers in one state are on a DNC list, you know this issue crosses party lines. Certainly the government has a bad rep as far as doing anything for the people, but so do corporation who violate existing law over and over again on so many fronts, not just in telemarketing.

And, granted, it is a bit of a petty issue to be dealing with when there are so many problems that need dealing with right now. But, the bill was passed quickly, no time wasted, no endless arguements and it's all said and done. For once our representatives did their jobs like they are supposed to be done, doing the people's business in a timely manner, and, amazingly, there are people on DU bitching about that too. I seriously doubt this will be a notch in any politicans gun, but it could have been a nail in their coffin should they have sided so blatently with corporations against the overwhelming desires of the people to be left alone.

on edit: clarity

[cmd]

33. Why I want to be on the list:

1. I'm not going to buy anything from a telemarketer.
2. I don't pay a phone bill in order to get telemarketing calls.
3. As I get older it is increasingly difficult to get to the telephone.
4. I don't appreciate being interrupted during a shower, nap, dinner, guests, a television program or just doing nothing by someone I don't know and am not going to talk with.
5. I hate being rude, but find that some people will just not accept a no thank you.

[E Pluribus Unum]

134. I agree

I am all for this law preventing these calls. I get 10 to 15 calls per day on my three lines. Can not wait till this law goes in to
effect.

[DemLikr]

35. I agree, vi5. It is bullshit...chance for politicians to look like they're

doing something, and kissing ass to yuppies, of which I am one, and I don't need my ass kissed thank you.

I am perfectly capable of hanging up the phone on a solicitor. I don't say "no, thank you," "so long," or "fuck you." I just hang up.

Takes one and one half seconds. Unbelievable that time in Washington is being spent on this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. 50 million people disagree with you

Don't you think in a democracy that much interest indicates a strong voice?

[northzax]

42. that, my friend, is why we have courts

and a consitution. to protect all of us from the whims of 50 million people. 38 million people voted for Bush, does that mean they are right?

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. And laws can change

Do you need a Constitutional Amendment for this one?

If so, it could pass tomorrow. This is not a whim, it is an intrusion into the lives of all Americans and we're fed up with it. You are not on the side of the angels on this one.

[northzax]

69. sure, no problem

just because a bunch of people want to deny rights to a small group for being annoying, let's run with it. whatever was I thinking?

and can we please, for only the second time, pass an amendment that limits rights instead of increasing them?

laws can change, the consitution should not, unless to expand the rights of people.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

84. 50 million people voted for Dubya.

I think I've proved my point.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

43. exactly...

I think you got something there....
It's like they realize what a colossal failure and coverup this administration is, and they want to make it seem like they care about something.

Hmmmm, How about jobs? How about dropping DU on an already devastated country? How about election stealing? How about investigating 9/11? How about american troops dying for Halliburton? How about Bush and Pals lying addiction?

HEY AMERICA IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! WE ARE WORKING FOR YOU!

What a load of horseshit. Someone somewhere is benefitting from this and I don't think its the people that will not be receiving calls.


TWL

[BeachBuckeye]

41. I'm for the "Do not call" law but....

Don't you find it absolutely amazing that the American public and our elected officials get far more upset over these unwanted calls than they do about a few hundred billion dollars being spent on a war we didn't want? A few hundred of our precious youngsters are dead and thats ok with many folks but, "damn, don't call me at dinner time."

[DrGonzoLives]

48. OK, then, give me your phone number

I want to try to sell you some stuff. After all, it's my right to free speech, right?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

52. Where did vi5 say he/she wanted more telemarketing calls?

The point is why does our government care about this? Why now? Why ever?
I seem to be able to think of many more important things that time and energy can be spent on these days. Not like we have a wonderful caring pResident and administration. "Oh I am so glad they have taken care of all the other problems in the world that now we can concentrate our efforts on the more trivial things like ANSWERING THE TELEPHONE less!"

:)

TWL

[soup]

56. I have a couple of questions

1. funding - where does the $16,000,000.00 + (2003 Appropriations) to maintain this list come from?

2. exemptions - charitable and political organizations, phone surveyors and insurance companies, companies you've done business with in the last 18 months - so they can still call in spite of the do not call registry? INSURANCE COMPANIES? what's that all about?

3. disconnect - and your name drops off. So, if you move, change your number, or have billing issues - you have to apply again? and wait the 3 months for it to go into effect again?

There are a couple of points that I do like-

Reduces abandoned calls.
Starting October 1, 2003, telemarketers will be required to connect their call to a sales representative within two seconds of the consumer's greeting. This will reduce the number of "dead air" or hang-up calls you get from telemarketers. These calls result from the use of automatic dialing equipment that sometimes reaches more numbers than there are available sales representatives. In addition, when the telemarketer doesn't have a representative standing by, a recorded message must play to let you know who's calling and the number they're calling from. The law prohibits a sales pitch. And to give you time to answer the phone, the telemarketer may not hang up before 15 seconds or four rings.

Requires caller ID transmission.
Beginning January 29, 2004, telemarketers must transmit their telephone number and if possible, their name, to your caller ID service. This will protect your privacy, increase accountability on the telemarketer's part, and help in law enforcement efforts.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/tmarkg/donotcall.htm

Have I signed on? no. I just depend on the caller ID and further screen incoming calls with the answering machine. When they come in

unknown
unknown

or A+ Heating & Cooling or whatever, I just don't pick it up. How hard is that?

[punpirate]

59. Assumes everyone can afford...

... caller ID. The poorer elderly on low fixed incomes cannot, and they are frequently the most susceptible to telemarketing pitches. They, as well as the rest of us, should be free from harassment by the marketplace.

That's what this is all about--the tyranny of the marketplace in our daily lives.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

62. oh its about protecting the poor...

I thought it was just priorites gone awry.

[punpirate]

64. Since when...

... do commercial interests have rights superior to those of the public?

Only when the government has been given over to commercial interests.

Defend a bad system, and be buried by it.

Cheers.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

65. Am I defending the system?

If I was defending the system I would be all gung-ho is support of this window dressing waste of time.

My point is why now? It's a case of "Hey don't look at what's in the hand behind my back, I got some candy right here in this hand!"

I am talking about priorities and hidden agendas, not defending the telemarketing system.

TWL

[sybylla]

70. No, you're not defending the system

Instead you're having a hairball over the fact that our politicians wasted a whole couple of hours passing this bill. It is all said and done.

It's over. You've vented. Let's cough up the hairball already and get back to some serious work.

[soup]

68. was hoping for an answer to my questions.

The main one being - Where does the funding for this program come from?

Does anyone know?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

72. Apparently that is not important..

As long as I don't have to pick up that pesky phone as often!

:)

Honestly I like your post, good questions. Someone is benefitting from this and that someone is probably a corporation(s) and the politicians they support.

And really, 16million? To keep a list? Does it cost 16million for a big hard drive and a database program?

I am really poor at executing good searches on the net. I hope someone can give us a hand here. Whereis the money coming from and who is making fat cash off this?

TWL

ON EDIT**: Hey don't the repubs have a friend in the database business? DBT/Choicepoint? Wonder if they have their paws on this.

[soup]

95. Trying to find any info.

Not having much luck. :-(

Did find this article with a couple more exemptions I didn't see on the FTC site:

"In addition, the FTC does not have jurisdiction over telephone companies, banks and credit card companies. Telemarketers for these industries can continue to ring numbers on the "Do Not Call" list until the FTC completes regulations to cover them."
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2003/04/28/story8.html

Has that been resolved?

I sure would like to know where the money is coming from - and who is going to be on the receiving end.


Maybe a start here:

February 3, 2003

On January 29, 2003 the House Energy & Commerce Committee voted to recommend that the House of Representatives approve the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act , which authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to collect fees from telemarketers to finance its new do-not-call registry during fiscal years 2003 through 2007. The bill, sponsored by Committee Chair Billy Tauzin (R-La) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich) is expected to be passed by the full House and the Senate. A separate Senate bill, likely to be combined with the House’s Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, appropriates $16 million to fund the FTC’s launch of the registry.
http://www.adlawbyrequest.com/legislation/donotcall020303.shtml
(my emphasis for citing the $16,000,000.00 above)

Apparently, the fees collected from telemarketers on an ongoing basis are expected to finance the registry. Am I reading that right?

So, the initial $16,000,000.00 comes from ____________?
and goes to ____________?
and the keeper of the registry is ________?

Somebody is getting paid here. Who?

Choicepoint? - Haven't put on that hat, yet. But, it wouldn't surprise me to find out they've got an interest here.

Note to Vi5 - Apologies if I'm taking your thread off-track.

[sybylla]

88. Here are your answers

1. funding - where does the $16,000,000.00 + (2003 Appropriations) to maintain this list come from?

It comes from our taxes, apparently one place many people feel is very appropriate for their tax money to go.



2. exemptions - charitable and political organizations, phone surveyors and insurance companies, companies you've done business with in the last 18 months - so they can still call in spite of the do not call registry? INSURANCE COMPANIES? what's that all about?

Yes there are exemption. This is why I didn't sign up for the federal and am only registered with my state list, which for the moment has precidence. They still allow non-profit and political organizations to call. But I can tell you from experence that even with these exemptions, my telemarketing calls have dropped from 5-10 per day to 1-2 per week.


3. disconnect - and your name drops off. So, if you move, change your number, or have billing issues - you have to apply again? and wait the 3 months for it to go into effect again?


Yep, my number drops off the list if I move and get a new one. But I can put it back on by making a simple call to a toll free number and within 3 months it is back on. In the mean time, the telemarketers have to find me because I'm not listed, and my new number is probably not in the hands of enough whore corps who sell my info for money. So I have to suffer for three months without being on the list. Justice will come when I am and the calls magically stop. It's a minor hassle compared to all the other hassles with moving and, in my book, insufficient excuse to not bother with a list at all.


Your answers, with my compliments. Use them well.

[soup]

96. thanks. n/t

[PDittie]

79. pun, their poorer elderly could...

have a cell phone. It would cost less; since it is mobile they would not have to get up to answer it; since all cell phones and services provide Caller ID at no charge they could screen calls; and it would actually mean NO telemarketing calls, as has already been posted several times.

I believe you mean tyranny of the majority, don't you?

[noiretextatique]

180. some people need land lines for internet service

and i'm not so sure that cell service is as affordable as you seem to think. i doubt a person on a fixed income would get a cell phone in addition to regular phone service...especially since phone companies offer low rate plans to those with limited income.
plus...you need credit to get a decent cell plan...another thing that might make it difficult for low/fixed income people.

[Chovexani]

63. You make a good point, but...

I would agree with you if the situation was different, like if Congress passed a law banning the practice of telemarketing. However, I see absolutely nothing wrong with having a registry (note: I signed up for the NY State Registry a while back, and signed up for the federal one the first day we were able to).

To me it's a simple issue of regulation. Every industry has regulations they are supposed to abide by, right? Why should the telemarketers be any different? The registry is just a way of centralizing the concept of asking a company to take you off their list, and actually enforcing it (watch any report by your local consumer reporter to see how much companies actually abide by their own internal "do not call" lists).

I'm upset that some telemarketers will lose their jobs over this, cause hell there are way too many unemployed people in Chimpy's America as it is and I don't want to see anyone else hurting, but damn something has to be done about this. Two minutes of your time might not sound like much, but when you're getting 10-20 calls a day that time adds up (and that's about how many I got before signing up for the NY state registry). I have caller ID and an answering machine but that doesn't help matters because the telemarketers have gotten sneaky and wise to the technology. My boyfriend is Australian, and my own family is scattered to the four corners of the earth, so we get a lot of international calls. These calls which show up as "out of area"--which is the same thing a lot of telemarketers show up as. We've missed some important calls thinking it was a telemarketer, so I try to get it just in case it's family--and instead am asked "if my husband is home" (always a dead giveaway). Let me tell you, I work vampire hours and so sleep during the day, and trying to do so when the phone is ringing off the hook from bullshit telemarketers makes a very grumpy Choxevani. My home is my sanctuary. If somebody breaks my window and steals my stereo, that's burglary, but if somebody calls me and steals my sleep, that's ok? :P

Besides, it's the principle of the matter--we have laws against solicitation in other areas so what's wrong to extending that to the phone? What if you don't have call waiting and someone is trying to call you about an emergency while some twit is trying to sell you car insurance when you don't have a driver's license? Telemarketing is no different from spam, it's an intrusion and it's harassment, and no one should be forced to deal with it if they don't want to. People that like to have people calling trying to sell them lawn gnomes--hell more power to them, I wish I could enjoy it. People that don't should have some kind of recourse, though.

--C.

[hexola]

71. Would it be so hard to just privatize telephone numbers?

I mean - you don't know my credit card number do you? (at least you can't get it nearly as easily) Treat phone numbers like that. Not sure how that would affect societal etiquete?

And I think smarter phones/telephony is called for. I'd like a phone that could learn which calls to reject and which a calls to accept. Sort of like a network firewall. I can't imagine that there aren't ways to identify, remember, and reject calls that are emerging from a mass-dialers...or lines that never seem to dial the same number twice...etc...

I'm for a ecomomic/technogical, rather than legislative, solution to this issue. If the government can use some power to mandate such...well ok...maybe. But it seems all the "do not call" list does is create a new class of criminal.

And, the idea of rushing to signup for a Federal sponsored list for ANYTHING creeps me out...

They (ISPs) seem to be doing a good job with email spam...I really don't get that much...(comcast)sometimes none at all. (it really trailed off earlier this year).

[FlaGranny]

107. We already have privatized telephone numbers -

called "unlisted" numbers. :-) Doesn't make a lick of difference though.

[Chovexani]

109. The problem with leaving it to technology

The problem with leaving it solely to technology to handle the problem is that enterprising people always find a way to get around it. Just look at BBV.

I have Caller ID, and it catches some telemarketers, but the majority show up as "Out of Area"--the exact same thing some of my out of state relatives and all international callers show up as. When I pick up the phone it's like playing roulette. Is it the Canadian friend I made at the anime con I went to last weekend, my soon to be father in law in Sydney, or some guy wanting to sell me lawn gnomes? Oy.

I agree that smarter technology is desperately needed, but I think it needs to be backed up by legislation. I don't trust the government, but I trust corporations even less. We simply can't trust these guys to behave themselves. They need to be hit where it hurts, their bottom line.

[theboss]

83. Few points

1. I am very weary of the argument that "x is not as important as y so x is all we should focus on." I agree that the war in Iraq is more important than a Do Not Call List. But I don't agree that everything less important than the war should be ignored. I once had surgery on both of my legs and had four hours of physical therapy a day. It was the most important thing in my life at the time. But I still had to do schoolwork. And I still found time to watch the tv shows I liked. Life does not end because something really important is going on.

2. I don't particularly care if 100,000 telemarketers lose their jobs over this bill. Some industries we simply don't need. I find it hard to believe that people on DU would be upset if - say - 25,000 people in the nuclear power industry or arms industry lost their jobs due to regulations.

3. Commercial speech does not have the same protections as other types of speech. You don't have an absolute right to advertise a product to me. I mean, you can't park in front of my house with a loudspeaker for three hours a day. Remember the last ad for cigarettes you saw on tv? Oh, that's right, such ads are banned.

4. I think the Commerce Clause matters more than the 1st Amendment in this case. Congress is absolutely allowed to regulate solicitations across the phone lines. You can't get more "interstate commerce" than that. They just need to write the regualtion correctly. That's really the issue.

[LanternWaste]

85. The way I look at this whole thing is like this

The way I look at this whole thing is like this- the telephone (which I pay for, both in up-front costs and monthly billing) is simply another extension of my accessibility, much like my front door. I may deny solicitors both announcement and engagement with a well posted sign to my house. Additionally, I may refuse the solicitor to even enter my property. I think I should be able to not merely hang-up on or disconnect from the telephone solicitor, I should also be allowed to 'hang a sign' in front of my telephone saying, essentially, No Solicitors. This is what, in fact, I think the Do Not Call Register is.

As an aside though, it's going to be interesting reading the court opinions on this. A part of me wonders if the ACLU will get involved...

[sendero]

86. other than candidate bashing threads....

.... I've rarely seen such piffle :)

>Telemarketing is a legit biz, we don't need a registry

Yes, and a legitimate business will honor the wishes of its customers. Noboby is forcing anyone to get on the opt out list. If they do, it might be a good indication they DO NOT WANT TO BE CALLED.

>It's not an intrusion - you don't have to answer

Yes, so thanks to telemarketers I'm now free to ignore my phone and thereby miss important calls. Absurd.

>It's just people trying to make a living

I have no animus towards most telemarketers (although one did call back and claim he was from the IRS calling about an audit because he got mad that I cut him off) There are lots of folks who I have nothing personal against, that I want to stop calling my house, wasting millions of trees sending me crap that goes straight to the trash, and sending me spam emails that I just delete. Nothing personal, just stop.

>You have no inherent RIGHT to not be called

True, and you have no inherent RIGHT to bother me with calls that amount to harrassment. We'll let the courts and legislature sort it out.

>You can tell a caller to put you on their "do not call" list

Yes, I've done that and only some percentage of firms honor that request. With this law and a national registry, they will not have the option of ignoring my request any more.


Ever get a "hang up" call and then get a telemarketing call a few minutes later? That's because most telemarketing companies use "predictive dialing" and there may or may not be an actual agent available to take the call once you answer. The system will hope that you hold on for a few seconds until one becomes available, but if one does not come available soon enough, it will hang up. Should hang up calls be legal too?

I avoid talking to most telemarketers because of that fact, if I say hello and nobody answers in 2 seconds, I know it is not friend or family and I just hang up.

Why did Congress jump on this legistation in an unprecedented way? It might be because 50 million people voted on this, and that is a number that no congressman can ignore.

[oldcoot]

114. Hang up calls are harassment

If a private citizen calls you and then hang ups when you answer, then that person may be guilty of phone harassment. I see no reason why the same rules should not apply to telemarketers. I think that this practice should be illegal and telemarketing firms should have to pay enormous fines (or pay their victims' phone bill for a year) for making these calls.

As for telemarketers just earning a living, the no-call list would only hurt them if they are paid for each phone call they make. Correct me if I am wrong but don't telemarketers work by commission? If this is the case, then the list probably will not hurt them because most of the people on this list would not be purchasing goods or services from a telemarketer under any circumstances.

I was also under the impression that the reason the judge found this law unconstitutional was that he believed Congress did not give the FTC a clear enough mandate to have this list. If this is the case, than Congress is right to pass additional legislation to fix this problem.

[FlaGranny]

163. I remember when I first started receiving these hang-up

calls. I didn't realize that it was computer calls - it was relatively new at the time. I called the phone company to complain about harrassing calls because I started getting so many I really thought someone WAS harrassing me.

[oldcoot]

178. You were harassed!

You answered the phone and no one was there. I would even guess that you felt some anxiety as a result of these calls. I imagine a lot of people feel some anxiety over these hang up calls because they do not know if they are being called by a telemarketer, prankster or stalker. I think that if we are going to give corporations the same rights as people then we should require them to follow the same laws. Since many states have laws against making harassing phone calls, we should prosecute the executives of the telemarketing firms who use this system for making harassing phone calls.

[noiretextatique]

181. i think most telemarketers are either paid by commission

of receive and hourly wage plus commission. i think you are correct in that the goal is to SELL, not just to place a bunch of calls...and clearly those who would opt to be on the DNC list don't want to BUY.

[chadm]

91. Corporations are not people, and therefore

do not have a right to freedom of speech. Yes, under current law, they do...but nothing in the Constitution suggests that organizations ought to have the same rights as people.

My point is that it is possible to restrict corporate freedom of speech while staying true to the Constitution.

[bitchkitty]

92. Screw telemarketers -

I'm sorry if they can't find something else to do, but it's up to the companies to change their marketing practices. My right to privacy trumps their right to bother me.

[jiacinto]

127. Those people have families and children to support

Your callous attitude toward them is offensive.

[bitchkitty]

152. And your assumption that

I should just give up my privacy and my right to decide who can try to sell me crap is doubly offensive. If they're bent on working in marketing, let them try more legitimate channels. There are inbound call centers.

[Uzybone]

106. Im with you

I feel sorry for the struggling telemarketers who will lose thier jobs. Get caller ID, dont answer the phone or just hang up.

[Chovexani]

113. Caller ID is *not* a magic cure-all

Please read my posts above. Caller ID helps but it is by no means a perfect solution to the problem. And what about people who can't afford Caller ID? Many of the posts I see against the DNC assume that people can afford cell phones, Caller ID, tele-zappers, etc.--this stuff is damn expensive in some areas. Why should the burden be on the consumer?

"Don't answer the phone"? Sorry, not an option--I'm not going to let some asshole corporation make me cut people out of my life, or possibly contribute to an emergency situation, for fear of being sold something. This is what it really boils down to for me. These corporations are imposing themselves on my life. Fuck them. Again, why should the burden be on me? I'm just trying to live my life here.

I too feel for the people who will lose their jobs, I was unemployed for a very long stretch myself recently, but at some point something has to give. These companies have proven time and again that they don't give a shit about anything but making money. They prey on the elderly, and routinely disregard the law. And the consumer has no recourse real as it stands. Legislation alone is not the answer, but it needs to be enacted as part of the solution. I see absolutely nothing wrong with an opt-out list. It's not like telemarketing was suddenly made illegal, it just had some reasonable regulations put on it, like every other industry in this country. I'm sure those regulations have put people out of work to. That doesn't make them any less needed.

[cmd]

122. I'm trying to save telemarketers some time

Telemarketers: Don't call me. I'm not going to buy anything from you. I'm not even going to listen to your message. Put me on a do not call list and do yourselves a favor.

I should not have to purchase caller ID or a telezapper or a cell phone. Just put me on a do not call list.

[jiacinto]

132. Good point

The lack of concern toward those who are about to unemployed on a supposedly "progressive board" is shocking.

[Muddleoftheroad]

Then don't crack down on crime

Imagine all of the families those crooks need to support.

And make no mistake, that's what we are talking about here. This is an organized nationwide plan to harass people. One phone call is not harassment, 10-20 a day certainly is. This is an industry-wide plan to bully people into spending money. How about prosecuting ALL telemarketing companies under RICO.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

143. That's the most ridiculous chunk of bullpoop I've ever read.

Next you'll be calling it "TELEGENOCIDE" or something.

Get over yourself, and your ridiculous bullpoop arguments.

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. Oh, you cut me to the quick

lol

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

151. I'm sorry. Would you like a tissue?

Kiss-a-booboo make-it-better?

[Muddleoftheroad]

167. Your comments are not worth it

You also seem to think that most people only get a couple calls a week. Perhaps you are the aberration.

[Jerky_LeBoeuf]

173. How many marketing calls do you get in a week, Muddle?

And when you make up a number out of thin air, try to keep it in the realm of the believable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

184. I don't typically count

But four today so far. How about you?

[jiacinto]

194. Crooks?

Spare me. If you don't want to buy you don't have to. But to call them crooks is unfair. It really is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. Then don't crack down on crime

Imagine all of the families those crooks need to support.

And make no mistake, that's what we are talking about here. This is an organized nationwide plan to harass people. One phone call is not harassment, 10-20 a day certainly is. This is an industry-wide plan to bully people into spending money. How about prosecuting ALL telemarketing companies under RICO.

[jiacinto]

126. Let me say it this way

I worry about those individuals who are about to be put out on the street financially over the Do Not Call List. I worry about them a lot. As someone who is unemployed right I fully understand how hard it is to find a job. I worry about those who are about to be fired.

I've gotten into flame wars over this topic before; but, for a supposedly "progressive boards", the lack of concern toward those who are about to be unemployed is shocking.

[bpilgrim]

135. what states will be hit the hardest?

will they be hit as hard as IT/MANUFACTURING?

werren't they moving tons of these jobs abroad anyways?

thanks in advance :toast:

peace

[jiacinto]

136. I don't see your point

Putting people out of work is still horrible.

[bpilgrim]

138. it was a question... not a 'point'

no answers? thanks anyways :hi:

peace

[Chovexani]

174. His point

(Sorry in advance for speaking for you bpilgrim)

I think his point was that the fed list isn't going to have much of an effect on telemarketing jobs, because many if not most of those jobs were/are already being outsourced to India, along with a lot of other IT/support jobs. It's part of a general trend.

Anyway, putting people out of work is horrible, I agree, but at some point society needs to put their foot down about certain practices. There are many industries whose regulations have probably put people out of work, I'm sure. That doesn't mean they shouldn't or don't need to be regulated in a reasonable manner. It's about the public interest. I understand people's need to have a job, but ya'll need to understand people's need to be left alone. I can't do *my* job properly when I'm operating on 4 hours sleep, due to telemarketers ringing my phone off the hook. I work vampire hours and sleep during the day, and before the NY State do not call list I was getting literally 10-20 calls a day, multiple calls within minutes from the same people, it was utterly ridiculous.

I feel bad about people losing their jobs, but this industry is in desperate need of some accountability. The list is a start.

[sybylla]

154. When you employ yourself in a position on the edge of unethical

you haven't put much thought in to it if you think it will never go away.

And besides, in case you haven't been paying attention, the greater crime is that these telemarketing jobs are being lost to overseas companies. Companies in India and Pakistan are taking telemarketing jobs away from the US. Even the GOP is employing an Indian company to do their telemarketing. So exactly whose job are you protecting? Whose job are you whining about losing?

I think you are whining to the wrong people if you are buying the corporate bullshit that American jobs will be lost because of the DNC list.

I am shocked that for a supposedly progressive board, there are so many people who don't get that this is just another corporation v. people issue that they are trying to turn into a people v. people issue. "Oh, look there. Those people are trying to take away jobs from Americans with their new regulations." Puhleeeeeze.

[jiacinto]

193. No I disagree

The fact that many DUers in the past have cheered when telemarketers have lost their jobs is offensive. For a "progressive board" I do expect better. These people are humans who have children and families to support.

As for their "position being unethical" maybe it's because they couldn't find jobs elsewhere? Have you ever thought about that?

[sybylla]

200. Nope

My heart doesn't bleed for lawyers, politicians and telemarketers.

Of course, neither does the heart of corporations bleed, nor the heart of the GOPpies for all the American jobs lost when they hire telemarketers from India or when they hire a firm to do telemessaging, where only a machine calls me. In fact, telemessaging calls have outnumbered telemarketing calls to my home since I got on Wisconsin's no call list.

As I said before, this is about corporations versus citizens, not as they would prefer us to see it, a fight between citizens. Paint it whatever way you want to, Jacinto. You've drunk the kool-aid, my man. We shall overcome.

[bitchkitty]

155. Well, take heart -

maybe it will be thrown out and you can get a telemarketing job. I'm unemployed too but I'd rather not. I don't want to get paid for harassing people.

[LearnedHand]

170. Thank you for taking that stand, bitchkitty!

I, too, was unemployed for eight months last year and into this year, and I would not even LOOK at telemarketing jobs.

There are plenty of other non-skilled jobs available in most areas for people who need to find work. In my city, these included other kinds of sales jobs, maintenance, groundskepers, light industrial work, etc.

Make no mistake: these jobs don't pay well, and I don't pretend that people can support themselves, much less a family, on these low-wages jobs.

My point is that people DON'T have to take telemarketing jobs. The only other job I can think of that falls so far on the scum-factor scale is repo work. I sometimes wonder about the people who DO accept such jobs.

Oh, and by far, the greatest number of telemarketing calls I get are from offshore (India) centers.

[jiacinto]

197. This is a tough economy

And frankly getting a job is harder than you say it is.

[jiacinto]

129. Think about this way for a second at least

There are people who need those jobs. They have family and children to support.

Think about that for a second.

[oldcoot]

144. How are telemarketers paid?

Do they work for a commission or are they paid by the hour? Does a telemarketer still get paid if he/she calls me but is unsuccessful in his/her attempts to sell me a product or service?

I assume that most of the people on the list would not normally buy goods or services from telemarketers so I do not see how the list will hurt the telemarketing industry. Indeed, it might help those telemarketers who work for a commission because they will be able to concentrate their efforts on customers who may actually want their products.

[w4rma]

131. Yup. You're in the minority on this Do Not Call thing.

Even the vast majority of the Republican caucus voted for it.

[jiacinto]

133. One thing

Just think of the people who are about to be unemployed.

[qanda]

146. I'm with the woman who called into C-SPAN one morning and said,

"I'd rather have them on the phone with me, than beating me over the head for my purse!"

Telemarketers are but a small inconvenience into my world. I don't wish anyone to lose the way they support themselves and their families.

Edit: misspelled word

[LearnedHand]

156. Sorry. This is one of the FEW times our representatives...

...have listened to their constituents and done what we WANTED them to do. They didn't dream this up.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT MY NAME ON A LIST THAT PREVENTS THESE MARKETING GUERILLAS FROM CALLING ME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[methinks2]

164. the list

is simply a list. The right to privacy in my home should always be guaranteed. If I can legally put a no trespassing sign on my door, then why not on my phone. The list is simply a no trespassing sign. If a telemarketer wants to use my phone he should pay my bill, otherwise it's my decision not to be bothered by strangers. :shrug: The telemarketers right to free speech ends on my personal property. My phone is my property. Maintaining and fixing my phone line is something I pay for, therefore I own. Just like my real estate and my car.

[PDittie]

168. another judge says the legislation is unconstitutional

so I suppose they will have to at least re-write it, and even then I doubt whether it passes Constitutional muster.

So I suppose that means you'll have to, you know, not answer the phone....or let your machine get it:

But (US District Judge Edward) Nottingham, ruling in favor of telemarketers who had challenged the registry, said it was unconstitutional on freedom-of-speech grounds because it would have allowed telemarketers for charitable organizations to continue to call numbers on the list even though commercial firms would be barred from doing so.

"There is no doubt that unwanted calls seeking charitable contributions are as invasive to the privacy of someone sitting down to dinner at home as unwanted calls from commercial telemarketers,"(emphasis mine) Nottingham wrote. By exempting charitable solicitations, the FTC "has imposed a content-based limitation on what the consumer may ban from his home . . . thereby entangling the government in deciding what speech consumers should hear."

"The First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws creating a preference for certain types of speech based on content, without asserting a valid interest, premised on content, to justify its discrimination," the judge said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html

[LearnedHand]

171. <sigh> The real heart of this issue...

...is that in the 1970s, a court ruling gave corporations "personhood" status. (sorry, don't remember the exact ruling, but I think it had to do with -- surprise, surprise -- campaign money).

Folks, THIS is where we're losing the battle (along with the national DNC list). To paraphrase Orwell, all persons are equal, but corporate persons are more equal than others.

:mad: | :nuke: | :grr: | :mad:

[sybylla]

175. The ruling was in the 1890's

And was corrupted in the 1970's to apply to campaign contributions.

And you are right. I have always ranked this as the number one problem with our economy and society today: corporate personhood. I might buy it if we could apply a corporate death penalty for bad players and if corporations suffered from the same punishment as humans for violating the law. But they don't.

Fortunately, even with corporate personhood, they haven't been granted absolute rights under the constitution. Otherwise, we would never be able to regulate them at all.

[sybylla]

172. Yeah, like that will last

Government regulates corporate speech all the time, for profit and non-profit. And our court system has supported that regulation. It's every corporation's wet dream to have SCOTUS rule that corporation have absolute rights to free speech. Didn't happen in the Nike case, didn't happen in many other cases. Not likely to happen here either.

[Woodstock]

186. IT'S MY PHONE AND MY HOUSE - that trumps their "free speech"

The whole "free speech" argument is absurd when it's in MY HOUSE.

Can someone walk in my door when I told them not to and try to sell me something? Well, it's free speech, isn't it? HELL NO. I'm going to tell them to get the hell out of my house.

If they come back and bang on the door day and night trying to get in to sell me something, I can call the police on them for harassment.

Same thing with them calling on my phone when I told them not to to sell me things I told them I don't want.

As it stands, I had to do all these things: unlisted and unpublished number, answering machine, telezapper (that doesn't work all the time, the telemarketers find ways to get past it, so, what, I have to buy a new model a couple of times a year to keep up with them?) All this, and I still get too many telemarketing calls. So I end up yanking the cord out of the wall (and risking missing important calls) to get a little peace in my own home.

It's absolutely absurd that I have to go through all this just to enjoy peace in my own home that I paid for, and to get this peace, I must give up the ability to get calls from people I want to hear from on the phone that I paid for. This is harassment, plain and simple. I can only use my phone in my home if I agree to be harassed in my home? What about MY rights?

As for the argument that people will be out of work, let's try putting people to work finding renewable energy. The same "out of work" argument was used for the tobacco farmers. It turns out they could have grown alternative crops, like broccoli. The status quo is easiest for big business, so that's the route they like to take. But if they make the effort to do the right thing, people will have jobs plus they will make money. We as citizens have to nudge them in the direction of making that effort. Maybe this will mean a yacht less for the CEO in the short run, but the step forward for our society will be worth it, and it will pay off in the long run.

I applaud the senators and representatives who are doing this, and the tax money is well worth it, especially if all of our lives are improved as a result.

[Ms. Clio]

190. I think you are

I was called three times within three hours by the same company just a couple of weeks ago.

MCI called me the first time around 6:30 - I hung up.

2nd call - around 7:30 - I hung up.

3rd call - around 8:30 - I asked them why they had called me three times that evening and demanded that they STOP CALLING ME!

To be fair, that seems to have done the trick. For now.

Some of us are working when we are at home in the evenings-reading, writing, and not just sitting around watching the boob tube, scratching our crotches and chewing the jerky. When I have to answer the phone and check the caller ID which all too often does not display ANY number and then wait to hang up on another telemarketing call it breaks my train of thought and screws with my work and since I can't call these people back at their job and screw with their work, why should they be able to do it to me?

Furthermore, why should it be illegal to solicit by fax--isn't that also a "free speech violation?" Or does protection from harassment just apply to businesses (since nowadays they are usually the only users of fax machines?)

By the way, according to an AOL poll:

Should telemarketers have the right to call you?
No 91%
Yes 9%

Does any direct marketing appeal to you?
No, it's all annoying 83%
Only if I can choose what I receive 15%
Yes, I find much of it informative 2%
Total Votes: 102,519

Seems to be a truly bipartisan issue.

[roguevalley]

191. I worry about the 2m jobs lost too. These are people with few resources

and options. Get a telezapper and it will take care of the problem.

[jiacinto]

195. This thread really sickens me

Some DUers are just being really callous here. Truly callous, insenstive, and reprehnsible.

These people have families and children to support. They are human too. And I do think it's cruel to celebrate their job loss.

For a "progressive board" this really sickens me. It really does.

In an economy like this jobs are very hard to find. Maybe these were the only jobs these folks could get and now they are going to have to do without.

I am sure that many of these telemarketers hate their jobs but can't find anything else.

It's not cool to cheer job loss.

[are_we_united_yet]

198. I agree with you

I HATEHATEHATE telemarketing. But, if it is banned, they'll resort to something else like showing up at your doorstep. I think the DO NOT CALL list is not well thought out.