Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

House Votes to Launch Do-Not-Call List

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the don't-tickle-my-digits dept.

News 1007

Zendar writes "Yahoo! has a story on how it took less than an hour with a final vote of 412-8 to approve the 'do not call list'. "Votes to overturn the judge's order are expected mid-afternoon in both chambers, according to Republican leadership aides." The President is expected to sign today. Some choice quotes: "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong." and "This bill will pass faster than a consumer hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time." CNN also has the story."

cancel ×

1007 comments

Don't repeal the Do-Not-Vomit list! (-1)

I VOMIT ON TODDLERS! (642865) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057253)

The pitter patter of toddlers playing in my vomit makes me grin. Vomit on your toddler today!

Riddle: (-1)

Fecal Troll Matter (445929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057269)

What's the difference between a toddler and a golden delicious apple?

I don't cum[sic] all over the apple before I take a big bite!

Re:Riddle: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057295)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! That's hilarious :))

http://deadbabyjoke.com/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057325)

More hillarity!

http://deadbabyjoke.com/ [deadbabyjoke.com]

How about an anti-spam bill? (5, Insightful)

wellvis (544990) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057257)

Why can't they pass an anti-spam bill as quickly?

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057266)

Because of the First Amendment you moron.

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (2, Insightful)

faldore (221970) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057322)

So you're saying that email solicitations are protected and phone solicitation are not? They are the same act, and eventually spam will become illegal when enough people get fed up.

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (1)

PD (9577) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057383)

The only person that the 1st ammendment applies to at pdrap.org is me, because I own and operate that mail server. Everyone else connects there at my sufferance.

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057271)

It's much easier to track down violators of a do-not-call list because there are a limited number of phone companies with more control over their network.

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (5, Insightful)

igabe (594295) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057310)

It's one thing to block a phone number. It's another to block an email.

Email is complicated. While most telemarketers seem to call from inside the US, email comes from all over the world.

Spam is too profitable and too complex to just stop with a finger. Making a quick initiative to block spam is often fatal as seen when the first spam filters came out. All of a sudden you didn't receive that one email saying you won the lottery. =)

Where do they come from? (5, Insightful)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057375)

Funnily enough, in the UK, many people find that most of their spam comes from the USA. If you could kindly get your government to do a similarly fine job on spam, I would get less offers for enlargement of body parts and other tempting offers...

Re:Where do they come from? (1)

fucksl4shd0t (630000) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057428)

Funnily enough, in the UK, many people find that most of their spam comes from the USA. If you could kindly get your government to do a similarly fine job on spam, I would get less offers for enlargement of body parts and other tempting offers...

If you brits didn't have such little dicks, there wouldn't be a market for such products, and hence, no spam. :)

Seriously, though, it's interesting that in the UK they're finding most of their spam coming from the USA. Here in the USA, I hear most of our spam comes from overseas (China, some African nations, and a lot from Taiwan, S. Korea, et al). I know that most of the spam I get in my inbox comes from overseas. :) Between the broken english and my email client wanting to install new character sets to display the email, it's pretty obvious. Not to mention that I installed several Asian character sets a long time ago so I wouldn't get prompted whenever I went to Japanese sites, so I get a lot of Asian email that doesn't have to install a character set to display.

Re:How about an anti-spam bill? (0)

silicon not in the v (669585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057390)

Yeah, from a legal perspective, this Do-non-call legislation should pretty much pave the way for passage of anti-spam laws, but from a reality view, spammers frequently hide their origin, making it hard to track down, and usually come from other countries, where we won't have the jurisdiction to enforce it.

Quickly? (4, Insightful)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057379)

How long have telephones been around?

Doesn't sound quick to me at all. They aren't passing a bill saying No Telemarketing, they are passing a bill saying the FCC can have a Do Not Call List. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Call the FCC for a Do Not SPAM list.

Representative government? (5, Informative)

Ghazgkull (83434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057259)

The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris Cannon, R-Utah.


Hopefully voters will remember how well the dissenting congressmen "represented" them the next time they go to the polls.

Re:Representative government? (1)

faldore (221970) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057281)

now can we have their addresses and phone numbers, so the T.P. can commence?

Re:Representative government? (1)

VAXcat (674775) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057301)

Intersting you would say that, in light of your sig, since this list includes Ron Paul, the only Libertarian in Congress

Re:Representative government? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057303)

A friend of mine stated the following I am quoting him:
"Isn't it amazing, somehow advertisers can invade our privacy with
impunity and anything to stop anyone from violating one of our prime
rights is illegal.

So, I guess it is time to start agitating to get a law passed that bans
ALL uninvited calls including those from politicians and charities."

I couldn't agree with him more...

Re:Representative government? (0, Troll)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057314)

Hopefully voters will remember how well the dissenting congressmen "represented" them the next time they go to the polls.
I do think that those people that will loose their jobs because of this will remember this too.

"Representative government" goes both ways.

And they can all move... (1)

siskbc (598067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057393)

I do think that those people that will loose their jobs because of this will remember this too. "Representative government" goes both ways.

...to a wonderful land called "Spameria" where they'll actually make up any significant sort of majority. Otherwise, it's the people who voted against it that will probably get nuked come Nov 2004.

Re:Representative government? (1)

drakaan (688386) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057324)

Somehow, I doubt the "do not call" list will be most people's deciding factor in the election. Even for people who don't just vote straight along party lines.

Re:Representative government? (1)

wizzy403 (303479) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057328)

Perhaps we should call them up at dinner time and ask them how they like being disturbed?

Show me your bets... (2, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057330)

Anyone want to bet these Congressman have telemarketers in their districts?

Re:Show me your bets... (2, Informative)

sartin (238198) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057387)

Ron Paul is a former Libertarian who joined the Republican party (in my opinion) so he could get elected.
He's probably just voting it down on libertarian principles.

Re:Representative government? (4, Informative)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057336)

Ron Paul is the House gadfly. He's a former Libertarian candidate for President, and reflexively votes against anything that expands government regulation.

Re:Representative government? (1)

funbobby (445204) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057337)

If they have a lot of people in their district who work as telemarketers, they are representing them.

But if I lived in one of those districts, yeah, I would be pretty mad.

Re:Representative government? (1)

brundlefly (189430) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057400)

They may very well have been representing their constituencies. Most of the reps on this list are Libertarians. In principle they object to the government intruding into business practices. This is just another form of said intrusion (albeit a popular one).

In other news.. (4, Funny)

Harald Paulsen (621759) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057262)

..hell just froze over.

Regulations (0, Troll)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057263)

Sad to see that the House is so easily influenced by popular media bias and don't make up their own mind on the issue instead. It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area. Why not then let the court decide the case?

Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.
From NyTimes:

He also said the industry would like to work with the government to find a solution acceptable to telemarketers and consumers.
Common, why not call a spade a spade. Everyone knows that this could mean the end off telemarketing as an economical way of doing bussiness. A do-not-call registry will lead to those people that don't wnt to list themselfs in such a Big-brother registry will get more incoming calls, and since they can't buy as much as the whole population eventually they will have to lower themselves to a level where they must sign up to this list.
Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.

While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.

Boo fricken hoo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057300)

Several analysts have ponted out that this coud mean milions of lost jobs in an important industry.

Yeah, and laws against murder have thrown millions of hitmen out of work.

While many of us don't like people selling us things we don't like but thats capiatalism you know.

If I want to buy something, I will contact them, or I will leave myself off the list. People on the list have made their decision. They don't want to buy telemarketed crap.

Re:Regulations (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057312)

This is slashdot, we don't like capitalism, because we got fired from our dot-com jobs when it turned out that we generated nothing of value. We want all that free stuff back and we want the rich people to pay for it because they aren't giving us free music, are making OS' we don't approve us, and are generally conspiring to keep us down.

Sincerely,
A. Slashbot.

Re:Regulations (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057327)

Telemarketing will die because the telemarkers finally managed to make themselves obsolete by increasing their most annoying habits (pre-recorded autodialers, calling during dinner every night) that people had finally just had enough. This will be bad for the economy in the short term in some places where this business thrives, but it's not as devastating as some would have you believe.

Industries form and evaporate all the time, yet the economy survives. Those people that are currently engaged in telemarketing will find some other way to make money, and markets will adapt. The economy didn't implode when the automobile devastated the buggy whip business, and it won't implode due to this either. The real fear is what sort of even more annoying marketing tactics will be invented now that this one is being slapped down.

Re:Regulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057331)

Sad to see that the House is so easily influenced by popular media bias and don't make up their own mind on the issue instead. It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area. Why not then let the court decide the case?
Why not kick in your face until your head is decomposed enough to see what kind of shit is inside of it?

Re:Regulations (2, Insightful)

hawkfish (8978) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057342)

Sad to see that the House is so easily influenced by popular media bias
That's democracy, you know...

Re:Regulations (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057377)

Great. I hope it dies. Telemarketing is the phone equivalent of spam.

If only we could deal with spam so easily.

Leave my fucking phone alone.

Re:Regulations (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057409)

I pay a phone bill to use my own phone as I see fit. I'm not paying to have some dipshit try to sell me stuff I don't want. If I want something, I'll go buy it.

Every time I answer one of these calls, I tell them to put me on their do-not-call list. But you know what? There's always some new dipshit company calling.

Enough is enough. Fuck 'em. Let them find new jobs.

Re:Regulations (2, Interesting)

I am Kobayashi (707740) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057412)

If the legislature authorizes the F.T.C. to do anything, then by definition they are not "engaging in regulatory imperialism and rul[ing] outside it's area."

Based on today's vote, I think it is pretty clear that the legislature had given the F.T.C. this authority. The reason for the hurried vote is not just the public outcry from yesterday's ruling. Legislators take offense when a court misreads their intent. They are simply clarifying their earlier position.

And why is the end of telemarketing a bad thing? Sure people will lose their jobs, but industries die and employees are forced to gain new skills everyday. This was an industry that made their profit by harrassing people in their own homes. The telemarketing industry should never have been allowed to exist to begin with.

As far as those employees who lose their jobs, perhaps the fines collected for violation of the do-not-call list could go to a fund to pay for skill training programs for former telemarketing workers? Sounds like a plan to me.

So many errors, where do I start... (4, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057421)

...It's clear that the F.T.C. has been engaging in regulatory imperialism and ruled outside it's area....

Congress created the FTC, and Congress can change the FTC's mission. Congress explicitedly told the FTC to create the Do-Not-Call list. Hence, they did not stray outside their area.

...milions of lost jobs in an important industry...

It has been pointed out that this claim is hyperbole. Most people who work for call banks work for a specific company. For example, a bank which calls its own customers. Such calls are still legal.

...thats capiatalism you know...

But that is laisse faire captialism, which we don't have in this country.

Re:Regulations (1)

spigi (635358) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057425)

The Old Burke wrote:
(quote edited for accuracy but not spelling)
> Several analysts have ponted out that this coud
> mean milions of lost jobs in an ... industry.

Good. I have no sympathy for those people who will be put out of work by the DNC list. They should have paid attention in high school so they could have gone on the college and obtained worthwhile jobs. I have no obligation to support the mentally weak and lazy.

Spigi

Lost Jobs (1)

javakev (691561) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057430)

The Direct Marketer's claims of lost the jobs is very hollow. A large numbewr of those jobs reside overseas for the lower wages and increased profits. So, the jobs would have been lost as these telemarketer's would have slowly moved these jobs to places overseas anyway.

Shocked (5, Interesting)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057267)

Wait, my government went against a bussiness interest for the sake of the people?

They did a good thing?

I take back some of the bad things I have said about them. Now if only they could continue this trend...think about it...RIAA ruled unconstitutional, it's members shot. MS seperated into many different companies, forced to develop OSS.

The Telemarketer 8 (-1, Redundant)

southpolesammy (150094) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057268)

"The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris Cannon, R-Utah."

How warm and fuzzy.. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057270)


"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."

Unless those same 50 million people are using P2P software.

Re:How warm and fuzzy.. (2, Interesting)

realdpk (116490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057386)

Or those 50 million people voted for The Other Guy.

Re:How warm and fuzzy.. (0, Troll)

The Old Burke (679901) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057402)

50% of the population do have an IQ below average too; that does NOT lead to the other 50% being smart.

Just because 50 million people have used P2P software that does not make it less unethical or illegal.

Cynics and pessimists take note. (2, Funny)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057273)

Shouldn't you have predicted that the telemarketers would have just passed on some cash to the campaign funds and won? Ooops.

Remember, cynics, you are not original. (1)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057320)

Cynicism and pessimism is not original or insightful at all. It is empty and braindead...a drag on progress. If that's all you feel, may I recommend the Church of Euthanasia.

Do the math (2, Insightful)

Atario (673917) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057274)

Small industry to offend

plus

Lots of voters to please

equals

Lopsided vote

plus

Passage in record time

Re:Do the math (1)

realdpk (116490) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057297)

I dunno about that. Congress seems to have recently turned its back on the tobacco industry, too. I wonder if the campaign subsidies are drying up, or if the members of Congress are on to some hip new industry to get funding from?

Re:Do the math (1)

BigBir3d (454486) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057299)

I am unsure how an industry with millions of employees (somewhere around 4 million IIRC) is considered "small" by you.

Re:Do the math (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057398)

Yes, but how long do those employees stay in the industry? Somehow I doubt that telemarketing (at least for the "phone drones") is a career. Hell, I imagine the turnover rate is astronomical.

"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong." (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057275)

Counterexample: fifty million Americans voted for Bush.

Re:"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057394)

Oh how I wish I had my "telemarketing article" troll ready. Oh well.

What about that judge (1)

kamukwam (652361) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057282)

What about that judge that i read about on Slashdot. Is he overruled now? It was only a few days ago. Couldn't he have waited for this vote?

Re:What about that judge (1)

princewally (699307) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057321)

The vote wouldn't have happened without his ruling.

Re:What about that judge (1)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057340)

Didn't realise that politicians could overrule a court ruling. What if it was truly about a constitutional issue? What if the politicians voted to reinstate slavery for example. Can they overrule a judge?

Re:What about that judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057378)

On Constitutional issues, Congress can be (and often is) overruled by the Supreme Court. If Congress wanted to legalize slavery, they'd need to have a Constitutional ammendment passed.

Re:What about that judge (1)

RedX (71326) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057405)

The judge overruled the FTC because Congress hadn't given the FTC the right to create this do not call list. Congress didn't overrule that judge's decision, they instead took his advice and gave the FTC the right to create this list.

Re:What about that judge (4, Informative)

jgardn (539054) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057410)

The judge didn't overturn a law written in congress and signed by the president. The ujudge overturned regulation implemented by the FTC because he felt that the FTC had no authority to do what it did, but the FCC could've done it. The FTC claimed that a small section of last year's budget provided them with the authority to do what they did.

So with congress passing this bill, and the president signing it, the case becomes pointless.

Re:What about that judge (1)

petard (117521) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057420)

No. In this case, though, the court had ruled that the legislature had not given the FTC the necessary power to operate and enforce the do not call list. The legislature, then, is now voting to give the FTC that power. The legislature is not overruling the court in any way, but rather doing what it said.

Reinstating slavery, OTOH, *would* require a constitutional amendment, not just an act of congress.

Re:What about that judge (1)

eln (21727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057422)

The judge's ruling was not on a constitutional issue, he simply stated that the list was illegal because the FTC had not been granted the authority to create such a list by Congress. So, Congress essentially passed a bill explicitly granting the FTC that authority.

Had it been a ruling on a constitutional issue, and the Supreme Court upheld it, the only way to overturn it would be to pass a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and approval by 3/4 of the states.

Good. (1)

princewally (699307) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057286)

The funny part is that the DMA started whining about harrassment when it started receiving all those phone calls yesterday. A lot of the calls were reported to its telco.

"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong" (4, Insightful)

jamie (78724) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057290)

And sixty million Americans are using peer-to-peer file sharing.

I posted my incisive and witty commentary [mccarthy.vg] on this matter of vital national importance earlier this afternoon.

Re:"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong" (2, Funny)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057343)

what the heck is the .vg domain? Vogon? V'ger? Viagra? Very Good?

Re:"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong" (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057369)

And sixty million Americans are using peer-to-peer file sharing.

However, those 60 million aren't likely voters that can swing the results of the next election.

50 million Americans CAN be wrong (1, Interesting)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057291)

While 50 million Americans may be right in this case, they can DEFINITELY be wrong. For example. more than 50 million Americans believe that the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever bullshit theory that is). One cannot automatically assume that a large number of people are right. That's plain bullshit mobocracy.

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (1)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057344)


more than 50 million Americans believe that the earth is 6000 years old (or whatever bullshit theory that is)

Young Earth Theory, IIRC. Are you serious? I have a hard time believing that 1 in 6 Americans is brainwashed that badly.

Remember:
Cult: A small, unpopular religion
Religion: A large, popular cult.

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (1)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057389)

The poll in the following article indicate that 40% of people believe in literal creation as described in the bible: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.ev olution/

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057403)

That is just plain scary.

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057417)

It doesn't say who they surveyed exactly. People in the United States, or people in Kansas (which this story is about). The results could be quite different.

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (3, Informative)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057423)

Here's the correct link : Creationism vs Evolution [cnn.com]

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057346)

Got any support for you claim of more than 50 million Americans being young Earth creationists?

Re:50 million Americans CAN be wrong (1)

InsaneGeek (175763) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057349)

OK, now show me the proof that there are even a million Americans who believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

Democracy (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057292)

While I am on the list and would very much like to see it go through, it irratates me when I hear statements like "Fifty million Americans can't be wrong.".
Popular votes are routinely wrong and a number of them have had horrible consequences.

Re:Democracy (4, Insightful)

nate1138 (325593) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057380)

While I agree that is a stupid thing to have said, I believe what was meant was more along the lines of "Fifty million Americans have told us what they want, so we're gonna listen, and do it quick"

Now if only they cared so much about the opinion of the 50+ million that believe filesharing is OK.

Re:Democracy (4, Insightful)

gantzm (212617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057382)

That's why it's a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy. Don't they teach anything in schools anymore?

Re:Democracy (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057406)

Its a joke, taken from the old saying "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" which I believe was the title of an old album. I'm sure that the remark has nothing to do with promoting the US or its citizens.

Choice Quotes (1, Funny)

cartzworth (709639) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057294)

"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."

Thats why 60million fileshare and thats not ok.

Does a little happy dance (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057296)

Hey telemarketers!

Whats that?

You what?

You don't like it?

Well have your people call my people.

OH WAIT THEY CAN'T!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ya know... (0)

silicon not in the v (669585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057305)

This almost makes me wish I still had a land line. :P

Nice logic (2, Insightful)

siskbc (598067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057315)

"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong."

No, of course not. Not like 50 million Americans still believe in frikkin' astrology or anything.

Hell, 25 million Americans still probably believe in Santa Claus. Sure, they're children, but that's really no excuse. ;)

These guys are toast in '04 (0, Redundant)

TheClam (209230) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057326)

The eight who voted against the bill were: Ron Paul, R-Texas; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Kendrick Meek, D-Fla.; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio; Ted Strickland, D-Ohio; Lee Terry, R-Neb.; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

*AAAAARRRGGGGGH* (4, Funny)

indros13 (531405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057338)

Inigo: "Do you hear that Fezzik? That is the sound of ultimate suffering. My heart made that sound when the six-fingered man killed my father. The Man in Black makes it now."

Fezzik: "Actually, it seems to be coming from the direction of the Direct Marketing Association Washington offices..."

faster than the pentagon's approval (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057339)

well that was fast. the only thing that i can recall having been passed in faster fashion were the House & Sentate approvals required to purchase the land for and the construction of the Pentagon. Took something like less than a month for the War Dept to go from concept to groundbreaking ceremony. Then another couple months for actual work to start in the first wedge.

QUESTION (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057348)

Who were the 8 dickheads that didn't vote for it? And what are their home phone numbers?


And more importantly, what does this have to do with my right online?

What about the telemarketer's free speech? (1)

BlabberMouth (672282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057354)

I mean come on, doesn't the Constitution guarantee every American the right be heard...over the phone? Also, whose free speech is being trampled if they can't put those messages on my answering machine anymore.

Re:What about the telemarketer's free speech? (1)

cartzworth (709639) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057368)

Telemarketers leave messages on your machine? Lucky (read: sucks to be) you!

The fallacy of their argument... (5, Interesting)

airrage (514164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057361)

I cannot stand bad thinking. And bad thinking is just what the Telemarketers are engaged in when they argue that the DNC list will cost jobs.

They could make an arguemnt for free-speech. I say the could make it (without me laughing), but I will disagree in the end with that one too.

But as for jobs -- it will actually make the telemarketer MORE money -- if there are less telemarketers! The current game plan is simply to call everyone on the planet from the time they are born until the time they die like every second of every day. I would suggest that TARGETED, AGREED, and WARRANTED solicition will result in a lower-cost of SALES OVERHEAD than currently spamming everyone on the plantet, with the same rate of success!

Of course, the telephone companies sit quietly in a corner and pout as it was their corner upon which the pimp was solicting his wares.

I would love to wake up in an opt-in world, but until that day I have to have some way to say, "No, I don't want a year's subscription to volvo-hotrod magazine.".

Peace Out.

only semi-helpfull.. =( (1)

phaserx (574470) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057362)

It's great that this is finally going into effect and all, however, 90% of the telemarketing calls I receive are prerecorded politicians trying to get me to vote for them.. Something needs to be done to stop that nonsense.. I don't need to hear about how you plan to fix California's debt when i'm trying to eat KFC and watch Joe Millionaire damnit!@!

i gotta stress this again... (1)

edrugtrader (442064) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057365)

if this was an opt-in to being called instead of an out-out of being called list, NO ONE WOULD SIGN UP.

so all this list does is force every american to sign up for it. we ALL want to be on it.

why don't they just make telemarketing illegal?

It should be called the DUH.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057366)

Elections are coming up fast... an issue that annoy's EVERY voter out there and you can say "I voted for that for YOU!"

the Judge was doomed by making a really dumb decision, and he just got bitch-slapped by the Government on one issue that is guarenteed to make your elected official look good in one way.

yeah, it's the DUH vote....

West has behaved correctly throughout this (5, Insightful)

PhoenixRising (36999) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057371)

It's certainly pleasing to see that on at least one issue of national import, our elected reprentatives can all pull together for an effective resolution.

I'm rather disappointed by the negativity that has been heaped on Judge West for his ruling suspending enforcement of the law, though. It's the job of the judiciary to keep the executive branch (in this case, the FTC) from overstepping the bounds of their authority granted to them by the legislative branch. If there was a question as to whether or not Congress granted the FTC sufficient authority to create such a list, enforcement of it certainly should be suspended until the matter is resolved. In this case, Congress (well, the House, anyway) has made itself clear on the matter -- they have explicitly placed the creation and enforcement of the list in the mandate. Unless West does something foolish at this juncture, like continuing to try to fight the enforcement of the list, he should be commended for doing his job of keeping the government consistent.

Wait a minute (1)

Krackbaby (123197) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057381)

I'm all for this list, heck my numbers on it, but shouldn't they just have the FCC do it instead? Wasn't that the problem, that the FTC didn't have the congressional authority to regulate telephone calls like the FCC did? I mean if there's this much support in congress and the administration doesn't it just make more sense that rather than add another law to the books (and give the FTC jurisdiction over something that they may not be suited for) just let the FCC take quick action? We know the FCC supported the idea since they "combined" their authority with the FTC's and just let the FTC run the list. The only reason I can see for the FCC not doing it is because supposedly the FCC chariman is independent of the administration and isn't supposed to be influenced in day to day matters, but they are supposedly in support of this, so what gives?

What's wrong with Norwegian Skiers eh? (1)

CrosbieFitch (694308) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057397)

"...hanging up on a telemarker at dinner time"

I wouldn't hang up on a telemarker. You should see their kneel turns!

I'd fancy some telemarking any day!

50 million Americans can't be wrong (-1, Redundant)

Jacer (574383) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057399)

Then what about the 60 million using P2P. IIRC it is 60 million.

Not overruled, simply complied with (2, Informative)

incompetent_bitch (519780) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057404)

Just to clarify - the judge held that the FTC did not have Congressional authority to implement the list. This vote simply gives explicit Congressional authority to the FTC to maintain a "Do Not Call" list.
The role of a judge is to interpret the laws, and he interpreted the law as he saw it. Congress took note and now fixed it. Now, unless there's a serious Constitutional question (doubtful), and if the FTC now has explicit authority from Congress, then this *should* be the end of litigation by the DMA.
So, just to clarify, the judges ruling was complied with, not really overruled.

I'm an okie (0, Troll)

wmaker (701707) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057415)

I'm an okie, and i agree with judges decision. I'm not saying i want these people to call me, but they do employ millions of people, and they have the right to speech.

The Do-Not Call List is a Bad Government (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7057418)

Fifty million Americans can't be wrong. That's going to be the mantra in Congress for the next two weeks as frantic resolutions are passed authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to implement the proposed National Do Not Call lists. It is ideal legislation; what self-respecting member of Congress is going to vote against those annoying calls at dinner to sell you vacation rentals or offer a credit card.

Ignored in the fracas is a startling truth: The Do-Not-Call list is going to be a failure. It's also an example of the worst sort of government regulation. The two arguments against a Do Not Call list are job loss and the power of marketing. The direct marketing industry has been crying out about potential job losses. Losing two million jobs, many going to low income rural Americans, is a bad thing. And I can believe that the choice direct telemarketing offers (would you like to switch your phone service for 2.9 cents a minute?) helps consumers in the long term. But let's break down why the Do Not Call list is going to fail: Nonprofits, Politicians and Business Process.

The two biggest abusers of telemarketing are politicians and nonprofits. I can't tell you how many times the Virginia State Police Association has called me asking for money. And my phone rings off the hook come election time with Get Out the Vote Calls. These two groups are exempted under the Do Not Call list.

But the exemptions, once created, can only be expanded. Do nonprofits that hire commercials solicitors need apply? What about nonprofits cross-selling commercial products (Greenpeace offering a MBNA Credit card? The NRA offering AT&T phone service). If our intent is to create a zone of privacy, why let in two industries off the bat. And why it may reduce the number of calls, the FTC does not have the staff or expertise to go after the multitude of nonprofit cross selling opportunities which will arise.

I can understand the hypocrisy of politicians removing themselves from the Do No Call regulations, but how is the average American going to react when they get 15 calls to vote for their local congressmen, city council members or Senator come election time. Didn't we sign up for the Do Not Call list, dear? Oh, yes, but Politicians can still call you.

But the biggest weakness, and why the Do-Not-Call act is going to fail, it that it trying to regulate an admirable process (stop telemarketing) but isn't setting out the tools necessary to do so. Let's look at how a telemarketer works. They buy data from a data company - say 15 million records on people who moved recently. They run that through some sorts and come up with 250,000 phone calls they need to make, and then hit the digits.

The national data companies will take the data a few times a year and add a field for people who signed up for Do Not Call. What that means is that if you move, or change phone numbers, it's going to take a while for that information to be updated. And if you name was already sold, say two years ago to a telemarketing firm, how is that company going to find out you where on the Do-Not-call list. Are they going to take their existing data and clean it (which costs money that the companies don't want to spend). And what if you run a business out of your house? Business to business calls are still open, so that means you are still open for calls. There's a hundred other examples of this, and the net result is that a lot of the 50 million Americans who signed up are still going to be gettings calls at 6 pm, and after a long and complicated procedure they are going to find out there's not much you can do. The Do Not Call list is government regulation that ignore business process, and it is going to do very little to stop the calls.

In Soviet Russia (-1, Troll)

suso (153703) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057424)

50,000,000 people call you.

50 Million People Sure Can Be Wrong (2, Insightful)

moehoward (668736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7057427)

Does that mean we have now voted god into existence?

Does this mean that astrology is real?

Does this mean I can talk to the dead?

Does this mean that Friends is really a good show?

I think not. 50 million people can sometimes be real doofuses.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...