Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FTC Moves Forward With National Do-Not-Call List

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the bring-it-on dept.

Privacy 505

netringer writes "The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is proposing some new regulations creating a national 'Do Not Call' list to keep US phones from being rung by telemarketers. Telemarketers who call a number on the list could be fined up $11,000. The new FTC rules also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled and limit abandoned 'hang up' calls from predictive dialers. The new rules have some loopholes, allowing calls from charities and businesses that have somehow gotten your permission or have done business with you before. The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities."

cancel ×

505 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

g to the oatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918623)

c to the izzex
fo shizzle my nizzle, y'all!!!!

Re:g to the oatse (1)

xagon7 (530399) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918644)

parent = 1337 5p3ak ... v2.0

or

plain ole stupidity.

It is obivoulsy Trolling Stones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918668)

he patented the g to the oatse, c to the izzex, which had you read is bio, would realize that it is a combination of goatse.cx, and jay-z's song, Izzo(H.O.V.A.)

Ring Ring... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918715)

It's for you! [goatse.cx]

The answer? (2, Insightful)

FunkSoulBrother (140893) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918633)

Perhaps the guy who just asked slashdot has his answer.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918635)

Deepside Trollas!

Now (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918645)

For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.

Re:Now (4, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918679)

"For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed. "

I'd love that. I'd report my address as *@*.*

Re:Now (3, Insightful)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918691)

For a do not SPAM list. What a concept, out-in should be the defacto thing, never opt-out, it presupposed willingness to be harrassed.
Unenforcible, and it would be a great source of e-mail addresses for spammers. Ironic, isn't it?

Maybe, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918764)

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time. Set the law up so as to automatically force the SPAMMERS to waive any and all rights by using ANY portion of the list. That way, they could not say they got the list from another source. Devious, yes, tasty, mmmmmmm. If your email was on another list, who cares, they would be subject to automatic jail time. Perhaps a 30 day stretch in the slammer for each violation! Talk about fun!

Re:Maybe, but (4, Insightful)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918853)

Pass a law that forbids using such lists for SPAMMING, then enforce it with instant jail time.
Send marines to bust some guy from souvereign territory of Quibumba Republic? Unfortunately this is not that simple. Well, there is a partial solution - a trusted organization that keeps the list and only answers queries about e-mail addresses. Or just publishing hashes of the prohibited e-mails. But this is only partial.

Naah... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918777)

You mean that the "remove me" link in spams isn't sufficient?

Well (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918655)

Where's the FTC's national "Do Not Spam" list?

Barrier to Entry (5, Insightful)

mr.crutch (98516) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918740)

The FTC can't reasonably regulate international companies, that's why.

The trouble with a "Do Not Spam" list is that there is no international barrier to entry for any of these spammers. If they want to set their servers in Thailand and spam away, it's really not costing them any more than it would to have the servers sitting at a US facility (in fact, it might be cheaper).

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant. The vast majority of telemarketing companies are not using call centers internationally because the cost associated far outweighs the possible income generated by these cold calls. The FTC could try to regulate Spam, but the are just too many loopholes to be successful.

But.... (4, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918778)

It could also be made to be illegal to use spammers! Make companies that hire spammers liable for the same damages as the spammer. That will take away from the spammer's income stream.

Re:Barrier to Entry (4, Insightful)

Large Green Mallard (31462) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918796)

Compared to Spam, the cost of making an international phone call is significant.

Keep in mind, a growing number of companies in the US are moving their call centres to India... it can't be TOO expensive :/

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918657)

the national list calls YOU to propose creating a new fdc!

Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! (5, Informative)

Flamesplash (469287) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918659)

Loosely related, but you can currently get off [dmaconsumers.org] Junk mail lists through a similar method.

It's Run by the DMA (5, Interesting)

mashie (267665) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918726)


Amusing that this do-not-mail list is maintained by the very group that is going to sue to stop the new do-not-call list.

And They Charge You $5 (1)

mashie (267665) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918774)


And they charge you $5 for the privilege - the bastards!

Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! (2, Informative)

PD (9577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918751)

That costs $5. That sounds suspiciously like "pay us some money or we'll harass you."

Re:Get Off The Mailing Lists Now! (1)

digerata (516939) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918754)

That's a wonderful idea, and its only 5 bucks.

But I'll still be getting crap about the Swedish made penis cream because this is not an international organization.

Could this be used... (4, Interesting)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918663)

to set legal precedent for effective anti-spam regulations?

It can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918799)

It can and SHOULD be used for such a purpose! Precedents can be so much fun!

In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918664)

Telemarketers hang up on you!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918763)

They do here, too...

Suing would be an admission... (5, Interesting)

program21 (469995) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918665)

The DMA suing would basically be an admission that they use unethical tactics.
From from what I've read, this doesn't say that they can't call, only that can't call if the number they are calling is on the Do Not Call list (and also the Caller ID stuff, which is secondary).
Frankly, I don't see how this would in any way affect 'buying oppurtunities', as the list would be opt-in, and so anyone on that list DOESN'T want to hear from telemarketers; it's actually better for the marketers since they have a greater chance of reaching someone who might be their product.

Oh FTC (1)

Shawn Baumgartner (632798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918667)

I love you. :) Admittedly, I will miss seeing how long I can get the bastards to wait on hold, but a small price to not have to deal with (much of) that telemarketing crap anymore. I know where the goddamned store is and I have Internet access; some doofus who got turned down as the fry guy at McDonalds isn't providing me with any great shopping revelation.

Wait, I'm confused (-1)

Juan Epstein (238683) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918835)

Are we supposed to like the FTC now? I thought we were supposed to hate them because of their censorship and regulation of the frequency spectrum.

FUCK THE DMA (-1)

MondoMor (262881) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918672)

Once Direct Marketers got hold of my Alzheimer's-suffering Mother's address and phone number, they took advantage of her. We're not sure how many thousands she gave (she's a compassionate person and has trouble saying "no").

I know there are some good ones, but I'm sorry, FUCK DIRECT MARKETERS RIGHT IN THE ASS.

How the hell to I make sure these regulations go through? I've got a ton of hatred giving me motivation.

Finally! (4, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918673)

Finally a list where you can post "ME TOO!!!" and it actually MATTERS!

hang ups (2)

JohnG (93975) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918675)

I'd say at least 60% of all telemarketing calls I get are hangups and it is very annoying. My friend recently called from korea and left a message on my voicemail, his phone number didn't show up on the caller ID so no I have to answer all the unavailables. Sheesh, is it annoying. The worst is the pre-recorded unsolicited crap though, I had one of those come in right as I was about to call the doctor for an emeregency. Luckily it didn't turn out to be anything because the damn recording tied up my line so long I would have died before I got through.

Re:hang ups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918800)

What's really annoying now is that, rather than hang up, sometimes they ask you to stay on hold until one of their assho^H^H^H^H^H operators is free. Oh Lord do I hate that.

ummm.... (2)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918677)

can I be put on the DO-NOT-SPAM-ME list????

What do you mean it's only for telephones?

I'd like you to know Mr. Politician, I voted for the other guy.

Re:ummm.... (2)

mrkurt (613936) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918762)

Unfortunately, the FTC's do-not-call list doesn't cover all businesses, either. If it isn't regulated by the FTC (i.e, financial services), they aren't covered. However, the FCC is about to promulgate their own "do not call" list, that covers the rest... so, stay tuned. Personally, the calls from the *&#@! banks (who I have credit cards with) are the ones who call me the most, and therefore wouldn't be affected by the FTC action. So I'm waiting, Commissioner Powell...

Caller ID (1)

All Names Have Been (629775) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918683)

...also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled.

Now if we could only call them back when they're eating lunch and ask them if they'd like to purchase a Mandrake subscription..

Re:Caller ID (2)

redcliffe (466773) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918701)

But you'd have to check that they aren't in the "Do Not Call" list first.....

how about (2, Interesting)

Sad Loser (625938) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918686)

doing the same for the Direct Marketing Association as we have for the self styled 'spam king'
Details here [the-dma.org]

Are these guys evil or what? (4, Funny)

InterruptDescriptorT (531083) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918687)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Good grief! Can you the ultimate evil company's board of directors?

CEO, EvilCo: Satan himself
VP of Intellectual Property, West Coast: Jack Valenti
VP of Intellectual Property, East Coast: Hilary Rosen
VP of Sales and Marketing: The Direct Marketing Association
CFO: David Skilling

VP of Getting Royally Screwed Every Time Shit Goes Down: The customer.

Potentional Loss of Buying Opportunities? (4, Insightful)

Cyclopedian (163375) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918689)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Please. All the telemarketers want to sell you are 'insurance', aluminum siding, and all unwanted assorted crap. I'm an informed consumer and if there's something I want to get, I'll find it and get it myself, thank you.

-Cyc

Constitutional rights (2)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918807)

Hey, don't you have a constitutional right to be interrupted during sex to wait on hold with a message, "we have an important call for you," so that you may get new curtains for your house for enhanced privacy.

Sueing on what basis (5, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918692)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Seems to me that if you took the time to sign up for this list, then you would be just plain pissed off by any further telemarketer calls, and thus not likely to purchase anything anyways. No customer lost here.

Now, if they really want to advertise, I've found those washroom/urinal advertising signs to be quite effective as most men prefer to look straight forward and having something to read helps prevent the possibility of peripheral vision eye-wandering.

Not your typical Linux geek... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918757)

I, for one, DO NOT want to be making eye contact with another man when I have my dick in my hand!

Re:Not your typical Linux geek... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918813)

Clearly a closet case.

those little roulette games on the urnial cakes (2)

Unknown Poltroon (31628) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918765)

What a golde..rem, prefect advertising spot.

Re:Sueing on what basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918789)

I prefer to stare at my penis.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918694)

the telemarketers sue YOU!

IN NAZI GERMANY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918729)

you could be arrested for suing someone!

IN GOOD OLD SINGAPORE (1)

The Notorious ASP (628859) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918823)

They'd cane your ass for being a friggin moron.

this could get interesting (1)

actionvance (635238) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918697)

So great.... people will farm there telemarketing out to out of country companies that only call the "do not callers" - because they will be especially receptive and un suspecting of a telemarketer. OR Companies will get more creative. Service providers such as cable companies may start giving out courtesy calls where they try to pimp out other products

Misreading (4, Funny)

adamwright (536224) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918700)

I originally read that as "The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue U.S. consumers for the potential loss of buying opportunities." and was remarkably unshocked :)

Don't call me (3, Insightful)

Student_Tech (66719) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918702)

I'll call you if I want something your service offers. To quote one of my parents "We don't do business over the phone" (unless we made the call).

Will this become the new "click here to opt out?" (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918703)

1) Acquire U.S. national do-not-call list.
2) Leave the country.
3) Set up in some spam-friendly Bumcrackovia
3) Start spam-calling everyone on the do-not-call list
4) ???
5) Profit!

Re:Will this become the new "click here to opt out (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918756)

Crap.
I think item "4" should be "Learn to count."

Yeah, what is that? (2)

unicron (20286) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918704)

I seem to be pretty clear of them, but whenever I visit my parents place, even if it's just for dinner or something real short, they get a lot of silence-calls. Not hang-ups, the line doesn't go dead, just silence. My folks are pretty boring people and it's just them, so I'm not inclined to believe someone is fucking with them. Is this some type of auto-dialer fucking up somewhere?

I can't believe people would use something like an auto-dialer. Go to the big house; bread and water, icy-showers, guards whupping your ass round the clock, and the only way? Suicide.

Re:Yeah, what is that? (2)

splume (560873) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918805)

This is acutally the telemarketers computers waiting for you to pick up. Once they know they have a live number (which they have just determined by you yelling nasty things into the phone) they will call you back at a later date with a person there ready to harass you.

I read this info a while back, but don't remember where.

Those annoying tricky bastards!

Re:Yeah, what is that? (2)

rudedog (7339) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918809)

I get silence calls all the time. It usually comes in clusters. For two or three days, 3-4 times a day, the phone rings, I answer, and nothing. Then we don't get another cluster for a week or so.

I'm quite certain that it's autodialers, because once or twice I've just waited on the line for a minute or so and the soliciter has started talking. I then tell it to put me on the do not call list.

Oh well... (2, Funny)

Zapateria (597451) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918706)

...I guess I'll have to put up with tormenting the Jehovah's Witnesses instead.

Re:Oh well... (1)

ejsjrnc (625710) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918834)

Of course, you could always do something similar to this [tommabe.com] and make a profit to boot.

They'll be opt-in calls from now on... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918707)

... the recording or shpiel will start out, "You agreed to receive this call...."

Is it just me or... (5, Funny)

Toraz Chryx (467835) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918708)

Is
"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities." the funniest sentence ever?

"But we wanted to offer them a once in a lifetime chance!!!!!"

The New York one has been fairly effective (2)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918712)

So far, the New York version has been fairly effective at stopping telemarketers from calling. I'm shocked, though, that the W bunch would have kept this thing going forward. My guess: they'll tank the lawsuit from the DMA and then say "We tried.".

W bunch can't do much about it... (2)

raehl (609729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918864)

The FTC (and the FCC) are independent commissions. The Executive trying to mess with what they do is, if not illegal, not ethical.

I'm surprised nobody campaigned in 2000 on no-call lists. What's more likely to get a vote: "I will save education!" or "I will stop the telemarketer from calling you!" ??

dupe (0, Offtopic)

zozzi (576178) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918716)

I predict that this story will be a dupe, I'll say this in every article and then when the dupe occurs I can link to this message and say I'm a great prophet...

... shouldn't need to wait for long now...anytime now (checks watch, hits reload button, mutters and smiles an evil grin....)

joke? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918723)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.


What ... a ... joke. I do hereby state that I DO WISH to lose all buying opportunities presented to me by postal service mail or by telemarketing ... yet the DMA, in their infinite wisdom, is here to protect me from my foolish decision. What a bunch of great guys ... way to go.

Loopholes? (3, Informative)

P!Alexander (448903) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918727)

As with every other law, I'm sure the lobbyists will make sure that we'll still get our fair share of calls from "legitamized" companies.

From the FTC website [ftc.gov] (emphasis added):

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

We'll see exactly how it holds up...

Good! (1)

missing000 (602285) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918732)

It's about time. My state has had a no-call list for about a year, and about half of the phone numbers in the state have signed up.
I just got a new number, so I'm getting tellemarketing calls 2 or 3 times a day until the list gets updated, but when I had a number on the list there was never an unwanted call.

As much as I hate ... (1, Troll)

craenor (623901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918733)

To admit this. I don't think legislation of this kind would be legal. That smacks of a violation of free speech. Just because you decide you hate to receive calls from one company, doesn't mean that should apply to all companies who market by phone.

I could see a service however, (not government sponsored or mandated) that would maintain a "Do not call database" for a small fee.

Craenor

Re:As much as I hate ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918863)

Free speech lets you think and say what you want.
Free speech does not let you contact me and try to sell me shit.

Hey, let's help out! (3, Interesting)

Shoten (260439) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918736)

What say we all get together and DoS DMA's infrastructure while this is in consideration? After all, if we were to keep calling them incessantly (and emailing, and whatever else we can do), it would certainly be an elegant form of vengeance, particularly if it impeded their ability to fight the FTC on this one. Don't forget to get the law firm that is "of counsel" to them in this matter :)

Telezapper... (5, Informative)

wnknisely (51017) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918739)

On a related note:

I grabbed one of those Telezappers while I was waiting in line at Staples last week buying a UPC. Danged if the silly thing doesn't work.

It emits the three tones that the phone company plays when you dial an out of service phone number. Everyone hears it when I answer any call - but the cool part is listening to the auto-dialers automatically hangup when they "hear" it.

There ought to be some way to hack together a similar machine using an old voice modem and some sort Tone controller - kind of a hybrid box for getting long distance phone calls for free. (Anyone else remember those?)

Re:Telezapper... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918790)

Dude...
You've got a sound card on your PC, no? That and an impedance-match transformer and you're golden.
Better yet, if you have a voicemail-capable modem, you have a PCM wave device built in. That would work OK with nothing more than software.

Re:Telezapper... (2, Informative)

4/3PI*R^3 (102276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918797)

All you have to do is record these tones on the outgoing message of your answering machine. Then never answer a call before your answering machine picks up -- unless you of course you recognize the number on your caller id box.

Re:Telezapper... (3, Informative)

4/3PI*R^3 (102276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918830)

Here are the tones you need are here [attbi.com] (http://home.attbi.com/~dakine/sound/tones.wav)

Re:Telezapper... (5, Informative)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918827)

Download the tone from http://heymoe.freeyellow.com/ [freeyellow.com] and record it on an old answering machine. Set the answering machine to pick up all calls on the first ring and volume to 'max' on the answering machine, so you can use it to screen your calls.

Total cost? $5 for a cheap-ass answering machine at Wal-mart.

Ummm, there's a *huge* difference.... (2)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918743)

between "...the potential loss of buying opportunities." and an actual lost sale. It all really makes me wonder wtf is the legal system coming to in the US? Ideas anyone?

Re:Ummm, there's a *huge* difference.... (1)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918771)

The legal system is becoming what it's always become in any culture and in any civilization... an implimentation of the golden rule:

He who has the gold makes the rules.

DON'T LOSE OUT! 847sjsj (5, Funny)

Bonker (243350) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918749)

DON'T LOSE OUT!

The FTC is about to take away your ability to recieve great offers and buying opportunities through email.

Stop them before they stop you!

For a small donation of only $10, you can help fund the fight against unwanted government regulation in direct marketing.

Remember that only you can make a difference.

You have received this mail because you indicated that you wanted to receive promotional offers of this kind. If you no longer wish to receive mail like this, please click this link:

http://www.spamhaus.com/addressverifier.pl?adress= cmdrtaco@slashdot.org [c]

Loopholes (1)

SmartGamer (631767) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918758)

The charities aren't the only holes here.

-What defines a mass marketer? Could I get sued by dialing two wrong numbers in a row who are on the DNC list?

-What, exactly, do they define a "chairity" as?

-Will there be an opportunity for telemarketers to buy a permit to call these people?

-What about schools, who have a viable reason to contact large numbers of people? (*ring* "School's closed!")

-What about a practical joker who registers a whole bunch of numbers other than his own, of people who, for some insane reason, actually like telemarketers?

-Is there any way to get off the list?

-What about ad faxers? ...there just isn't enough information.

The War On Telemarketers (2)

rossjudson (97786) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918769)

Personally I think this is more important than the war on terrorism. I mean, nobody's tried to blow me up lately, but these calls happen every single day. So who isn't going to want to be on the national do not call list?
Predictive dialing should simply be recognized as harassment and prosecuted as such under current law. If you or I repeatedly call somebody and then hang up, don't you think the police and/or phone company are going to be interested? Oh yeah, I forgot, the phone company is making money on all those calls.
We could also legislate that all unsolicited commercial phone calls carry a surcharge. This surcharge can be rebated to consumers directly -- it shows up on your phone bill. The more you've been called, the more you get back.

Thanks (5, Funny)

The Kow (184414) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918773)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.

Next: Stalker sues State for issuing restraining order, denying his ex-wife the opportunity to be harassed mercilessly.

For email and addresses (2, Insightful)

xombo (628858) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918776)

Why don't they do this with email and physical addresses so people wont mail you or email you, and maybe keeping away door to door salesmen too.

funny but not altogether unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918791)

save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities.
Lets take the analogy of internet browsing and email usage real quick. If I am browsing through various sites and I get a popup I kill it. If however I see a banner that is not imposing anything on me, then I will look at it and see if it interests me (this in turn could be compared to driving by billboards as opposed to driving and then having paper or plastic advertisements be shot at your window, coating them in multiple layers of ads in which it takes both the operation of your hands and the wipers to remove while hanging your head out the window to see. I make it a point (whenever a popup slips through) to NEVER reward the company listed on the popup with my business as this only encourages such behavior.

If I get calls by telemarketers then I tell them to send me info in the mail... rarely do they follow through.

Don't mind it that much.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918803)

I, for one, do not mind direct marketing as a concept or as a business practice except that their current practices SUCK. They call late. They call during the worse times (e.g. a meal--you honestly expect me to listen when there's food to be eaten?, or primetime, TV to be watched).

If there was a way for them to call 1 number and keep it separate from all the others, I'd be game. I'd rather have a separate number of voicemail for them, or rather have the FCC require all telemarketers and businesses to have a damn caller ID flag that shows it's a telemarketer calling, so they can be screened or accepted. Devices could even be made around this idea and sold (blah blah, yeah, never happen, people will abuse this, blah blah).

But I guess that's too hard. I currently use a simple self-made blocker that requires you to enter a (changeable) PIN to actually get the phones to ring, otherwise it shoves you over to the answering machine. I had written a little program that looked at the caller ID string and shoved it over to the answering machine if it came from an "unavailable" number or didn't have a 2 proper names, but then I ended up missing important calls. (I also tried only ringing if it matched known folks, but that was too stringent.)

Too bad the Direct Marketing Association is only willing to sue, not find a practical solution for its members to follow that also protects those who do not want to be targetted.

I'd prefer that *I* pay to be on the list... (2)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918804)

It seems it'll be 'free' to consumers and paid for by fees collected from telemarketers. That'll just translate into higher prices on more goods, as companies will use those fees as justification for higher prices, and there'll be more 'justification' than I care to think about.

No, I'd rather simply pay $5/year per number, or something similar, to have my numbers registered as 'do not call'. Or damn - have the phone companies collect it - they collect dozens of other taxes already. An extra 50 cents per number per month ($6/year) would go unnoticed and help fund this system.

They could even make extra money by charging the telemarketers for the lists of DNC numbers, but the decision is up to the telemarketing companies. Keep a current list, or risk paying fines.

Colorado already has similar list (2, Informative)

ThingOne (578618) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918808)

I am already on a no call list here in Colorado. It has worked well. If implemented right it works. My phone never rings anymore. If someone does get through and you mention your on a statewide no call list. The apologize and hang up, never to be heard from again. They just need one for spam and all would be good

Re:Colorado already has similar list (2, Informative)

ThingOne (578618) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918850)

http://www.coloradonocall.com

Massachusetts "do not call" law... (2)

sdo1 (213835) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918811)

The presumably similar Massachusetts "do not call" law [mass.gov] becomes effective January 1st, 2003. If you're a MA resident, visit http://www.mass.gov/donotcall [mass.gov] between January 1st and March 1st, 3002 to be added.

My iPaq is set to remind me to sign up.

-S

won't work internationally (2)

axxackall (579006) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918816)

You cannot force international spammers to pay the fine. And you cannot force them to have a caller ID either. Unless you are ready to treat such way other goverments on behalf of their spamming residents. Or unless you are ready to disconnect whole countries from USA. Or unless you are able to change international laws for convinience of US citizens ...

I knew that only moroons are working in the govt of the country #1, but I did not know that THAT moroons.

Paging Mr. Gates... (2)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918819)

"The new FTC rules also require that telemarketers have Caller ID enabled..."

That right there would make me want to buy a Microsoft Powered phone. Has anybody ever used Outlook's "Rules Wizard" before? Imagine being able to apply that to phone calls.

Apply this rule when the phone rings
whose phone number is not on the Contact List.
Set ringer mode to silent.
Answer with this message 'PlaceMeOnDNCList.wav'
Hang up
Set ringer mode to default
Stop processing more rules

(Actually I wouldn't care who made it, I just think MS would implement a decent version of it.)

who gets the money? (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918822)

I want to know who gets the $11k? I am the one being annoyed by the phone calls, but how much should I bet the government is the one that will get the windfall? The story's not clear on who files the claim.

Am I just cynical? (Yes, I've had some bad experiences with lawsuits recently, so that could explain it.)

New York residents already have this (2)

call -151 (230520) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918825)

If you live in the state of New York, there is already a statewide "Do not call" registry and you can sign up at the webpage at this link [nynocall.com] . It definitely reduced unsolicited calls for us dramatically.

STUPID EXCUSE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918837)

"The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities" ????

THAT IS THE DUMMEST EXCUSE FOR TELEMARKETING!!!

how many people actually buy from these idiots??

In the meantime... (2)

tiltowait (306189) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918840)

There is a national DMA opt out method [dmaconsumers.org] (voluntary adherence, tho), but several legally enforcable state do not call lists [dmoz.org] you can enroll in.

lol as soon as I read this article... (1)

EvanTaylor (532101) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918847)

AT&T called me offering me new long distance service

Telemarketing in Iceland (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4918854)

Here in Iceland the biggest telephone company and the one with almost all the landline business decided last year to make a ban list so a number with a red X in the phone book cant be called by a telemarketing company. What did the telemarketing guys decide to do? Ignore the red X marks. Great idea!

Translation... (4, Funny)

pla (258480) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918858)

The "charity" loophole will end up VERY abused...

"Hi, Fred here, from Fred's Aluminum Siding Non-Profit Shell Corporation and Charity. I'd like to talk to you about how 0.0001% of every purchase you make through us goes directly to feed starving, aluminum-siding-less children in South Africa..."

Why not? It works for companies that want to buy their own personal politician... Does anyone really suspect ANY sane politician (I didn't say "ethical", just "sane") would dare take a stand against a scheme that could turn around and attack their major source of campaign financing?

Devil's advocate... (1, Troll)

3-State Bit (225583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918859)

Earlier this semester I'd called up prospective students, most of whom had signed up at a college fair or something, to talk with them (if they were still interested) about my college, answer any questions, etc. Almost universally they said that they remembered doing that, and then went on either to tell me they were no longer interested (in which case I told them I'd take them off the list and asked if they would tell me where they were now looking at instead, for our records -- almost everyone gave me a detailed list of where they were now looking, or in some cases had been accepted), or else to talk to me about the college, ask questions, etc.
How would this system affect "telemarketers" who get their numbers from something other than phone books. Every single time I've ever given out my phone number to any organization, it was with the understanding that I'd be willing to receive calls from that organization in the future, had enough interest that I'd say "hello" if they called and introduced themselves, and listened to what they had to say.
That's how opt-in works.
It's probably already illegal for such organizations to share my number (or should be), and if I were being terribly bothered by people calling me from the phone book, I'd have my number unlisted. (This is actually not much of a problem, in spite of my living in a large city.)
So, is it really necessary to have a do-not-call list, over it being necessary to have a "not legal to share opt-ins"? Basically, if it takes as much effort for me to opt-out of a single organization's list as it ever took me to opt-in (because there's no number-sharing), why is it bad to call people? What's the need for this national DNC list?

Class Action DMA lawsuit (2)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 11 years ago | (#4918861)

The Direct Marketing Association is threatening to sue to save U.S. consumers from the potential loss of buying opportunities

Well in order for them to take any legal action on my behalf (along with the millions of other Americans with phones), I'd have to join their class action lawsuit. Which I wouldn't do even if it were the last class action lawsuit in the world, or even if me and their class action lawsuit were stranded on a desert island together.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>