[CZ52GUY]

Can someone please explain why telemarketers have a 1st Amendment right to enter my home and yell in my ear with a hard sell?

I can post signs restricting access to my property, but I cannot participate in a registry which restricts access to my kitchen?

I'm looking at the document, and I don't see the content that yet another federal buffoon in robes identifies...

CZ52'

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

Way the latest judge said it, they have the same right as politicians and charities to do this. However, the groups didn't get treated equally by the law -- they were still allowed to shill their line during your dinnertime while the telemarketers weren't.

- pdmoderator

[CZ52GUY]

My kitchen.

My sign (FTC posts for me).

My rights being violated, not Telemarketers. THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS IN MY KITCHEN!

There is no 1st Amendment grounds for delaying registry.

There is no 1st Amendment obligation to include charities and political contacts...but I'd be happy if Congress/FTC amended to include...an oversight probably worth correcting.

Dinner is dinner and my kitchen is my kitchen, whether it be Dean '04 committee, the United Way, or Ginsu Knives salesmen, the sign posted at the CZ52' household reads D-O N-O-T C-A-L-L! Violators will be dealt with appropriately ;) .

CZ52'

[Sean Smith]

I re-read the Constitution, and I don't see a right for strangers to call me on the telephone and bother me. Now, granted, not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution, but I don't see how it is implied either. There is no "Smarmy persons can bother you in your home through various means" loophole in the 4th Ammendment that could be applied to telephones, for instance. Furthermore, "To regulate commerce ...among the several states" is one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government in the first place, and some a-hole calling me from Montana to sell me Lemming futures certainly qualifies there.

:rolleyes:

[CMichael]

Did you notice that the politicians excluded themselves from making calls on those on the do not call list?

If you don't want calls like that you can either:

1) Get an unpublished number

2) Use caller ID and privacy manager

There is the technology to deal with it.

Prospecting is an important way to get business. We are already in a sluggish economy. Consumers have bought a few billion dollars worth of stuff because of telemarketing calls so apparently there is some interest among consumers in getting them.

Also, how many telemarketers are going to lose their jobs because of this?

I confess that I am biased. I am a real estate agent. Prospecting is a very important part in getting new business.

[Mike Irwin]

Apparently the Washington Times editorial page today published the chambers phone number for the judge who made that ruling.

No one has been able to get through...

I wonder why?

[CMichael]

I don't think harassing the judge is right.

[cordex]

My take on this issue was covered in the other thread.

You want to post a "No soliciting to this number" sign (unlisted number, any of the dozens of different privacy manager devices, etc), then you are welcome to. You want to deny access to your line, you are welcome to.

Don't make me pay to post your sign.

[ARperson]

I make my living by making phone calls. No, I'm not a telemarketer. But under the new national version, I'm severely limited in the phone calls I could make. Basically, only to those I've done business with in the past or those that I've already had prior contact with. Now how am I supposed to increase my business by limiting my contacts to the same people again and again? :confused:

Instead of asking what right people have to make phone calls that interrupt your dinner, you should be asking yourself what right government (the federal one) has to interfere with legitimate business practices.

If you don't want to be interrupted, don't answer the damn phone. Simple as that. If you don't want to be interrupted, it's YOUR responsibility to do something about it. If that means you have to pay out of your own pocket to procure Caller ID, Privacy Manager, or something similar, then so be it. That's your right and your perogative. But you do not have the right to make me pay for it.

Additionally, my state has enacted a Do Not Call list. While I'm not fond of it, at least it was a state decision and not forced upon us by the buffoons in Washington. A national Do Not Call list has no business being made. If it ain't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the jurisdiction over it.

For all the talk of freedom and less government involvement around here, I'm hearing a lot of screaming for it on this issue.

[CZ52GUY]

Have an unlisted number.

Get harassed anyway.

Given that (as has been pointed out) regulation of commerce is one of the few legitimate roles of the federal gov't, I'm well within my rights to support action to protect my abode from unreasonable hassle.

There is no Constitutional guarantee to harass folks who have clearly articulated their desire to be left alone. Given the state of the economy, I'd expect that resources to be allocated toward those willing to engage in telemarketing discussions. There is a reason 50M+ Americans indicated that they wanted to opt out, deal with it!

Stay off my property. I'll chase you off or have the constable (a public employee also funded by my tax dollars) chase you off if I have to.

Stay out of my kitchen, I'm glad to get something out of the thousands I send to Uncle Sam every year to assist with that effort.

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

to take the high road...

I make my living by making phone calls. No, I'm not a telemarketer. But under the new national version, I'm severely limited in the phone calls I could make. Basically, only to those I've done business with in the past or those that I've already had prior contact with. Now how am I supposed to increase my business by limiting my contacts to the same people again and again?

Your right to make contacts is restricted to the willingness of the other party to do business with you. The registry is a pre-emptive act by those who don't want you in their kitchen to request you respect the borders of their home and stay out. You have no economic right to invade my property.

If you don't want to be interrupted, don't answer the damn phone. Simple as that. If you don't want to be interrupted, it's YOUR responsibility to do something about it. If that means you have to pay out of your own pocket to procure Caller ID, Privacy Manager, or something similar, then so be it. That's your right and your perogative. But you do not have the right to make me pay for it.

What about stay out of my house don't you understand? I did do something about it. I and 50M+ others directed the Federal Government to notify you to stay out of my house. The sign has been posted. NO SOLICITING!! What possible logic would think you have ANY RIGHTS in my home? Given that I have signed up for such a service, why would you think I would give you a penny of my business? Spend your money following up with folks who haven't clearly articulated their desire to be left alone. I actually do have the right to keep you out of my house, and you need to acknowledge that...FTC ruling or not.



Instead of asking what right people have to make phone calls that interrupt your dinner, you should be asking yourself what right government (the federal one) has to interfere with legitimate business practices.


The Constitution allocated to the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce. The taxpayers obviously are supportive of this effort and have indicated their approval by participating. There is nothing legitimate about virtually invading my home. STAY OUT!!
If you don't want to be interrupted, don't answer the damn phone. Simple as that. If you don't want to be interrupted, it's YOUR responsibility to do something about it. If that means you have to pay out of your own pocket to procure Caller ID, Privacy Manager, or something similar, then so be it. That's your right and your perogative. But you do not have the right to make me pay for it.


Additionally, my state has enacted a Do Not Call list. While I'm not fond of it, at least it was a state decision and not forced upon us by the buffoons in Washington. A national Do Not Call list has no business being made. If it ain't in the Constitution, then the federal government does not have the jurisdiction over it.

No one forced 50M+ Americans to sign up for the registry. This is democracy in action...again, a Constitutional case can be made for jurisdiction...a better case can be made questioning the validity of the "business practice" of virtual home invasion based on the popularity of the effort among the American people.


For all the talk of freedom and less government involvement around here, I'm hearing a lot of screaming for it on this issue.

The screaming is for the Government to enforce my right to keep virtual home invaders from screaming into my ear in my kitchen when I've clearly posted a sign that says KEEP OUT! If Telemarketers would have honored polite requests to stop harassing people, then this would not be necessary. I concede that the need for Federal intervention is regretable, but the industry brought this on themselves by failing to comply with polite requests by folks like me who simply wish to exercise their right to be left alone within the borders of their home.

CZ52'

[cordex]

Lots of "Interstate Commerce Clause is GOOD!"
When it is used to justify gun laws, I rarely hear that here.

How do you justify the fact that intrastate calls will also be restricted?
I concede that the need for Federal intervention is regretable, but the industry brought this on themselves by failing to comply with polite requests by folks like me who simply wish to exercise their right to be left alone within the borders of their home.
Your "right" to be left alone ends when you contract with the telephone company to provide a line into which anyone can dial and you choose to put a phone on that line. Don't want that? Don't get one.

By the way, can you explain to me why you have this unenumerated "right" to be left alone just because you want this "right", but Telespammers don't have the "right" to call a publicly accessable line you decide to leave open?

[tiberius]

Instead of asking what right people have to make phone calls that interrupt your dinner, you should be asking yourself what right government (the federal one) has to interfere with legitimate business practices.

When the do not call list goes onto effect, then it will NO LONGER BE A "legitmate business practice" now will it? :D


The .gov isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The FTC is simply providing the option to people who do not enjoy the harrasment. Only 50,000,000 people have signed up so far, that still leaves plenty of people to harrass at home.

Don't make me pay to post your sign.

I doubt that this will cost much. All they have to do is maintain a list. Enforcement will pay for it self through the fines.

[CZ52GUY]

...so be it.

However, my understanding is that those who do interstate business find themselves covered under the "regulation of commerce umbrella".

In the end, this isn't about legal technicalities as much as it is a burning desire by a large number of people in this country to simply be left alone.

If the industry would have been smart enough to regulate itself, we wouldn't need FTC assistance to throw people off our property.

Unfortunately, we do...because people like some of those within this thread fail to understand a fundamental fact, my kitchen is my kitchen, period.

I have ZERO obligation to allow you into my home, physically or virtually.

That lack of respect is what has caused this problem to surface.

The way I see it, your side is the one who is seeking Federal intervention from the Judiciary to enforce an imaginary 1st Amendment right to invade my home.

If you explain why your 1st Amendment rights extend into my kitchen, I'll concede the point, because that's where the argument stands from a legal basis on 9/26/2003.

CZ52'

[Hkmp5sd]

Instead of asking what right people have to make phone calls that interrupt your dinner, you should be asking yourself what right government (the federal one) has to interfere with legitimate business practices.

The court decision was not about 1st Amendment or legitimate business practices. It was that there was no current law that allowed the FTC to perform the function of creating a 'don't call" registry. A problem that is rapidly being corrected.

As for interference, it is the individual that asks for his telelphone number to be added to the list. If you think this is an illegal interference, then by extension, so must Caller-ID and answering machines. All three methods allow you to identify a caller beforehand and not accept the call. The only difference is one does so without any action or cost on your part.

[CZ52GUY]

Your "right" to be left alone ends when you contract with the telephone company to provide a line into which anyone can dial and you choose to put a phone on that line. Don't want that? Don't get one.

Because I live on a town maintained road with a house number that is visible from the street does not provide anyone the right to ignore the No Trespassing signs that are posted per legal requirements at my location.

Your arrogance about your right to come into my home virtually is appalling and consistent with the motivations that have brought this registry into existence.

BTW, My phone number is not listed, anywhere. By selecting to pay the extra cost for having an unlisted line, I am taking reasonable steps to ensure that my phone line is used exclusively for communications to and from those with whom I care to interact.

There is nothing legitimate about random number punching whether physical, or computer aided, that seeks to find ways to invade those that have taken these precautions at their expense or similarly avoid the anonymous number blocking and caller ID services which I also PAY FOR.


By the way, can you explain to me why you have this unenumerated "right" to be left alone just because you want this "right", but Telespammers don't have the "right" to call a publicly accessable line you decide to leave open?

The right to own property in the United States and secure it for my private use is not an open question. It isn't subject to trial lawyer interpretation, or Federal Judicial review.

You are the poster child for the registry, thanks so much for making my points.

If you and others like you would show some fundamental respect for the right of any human being to exert their right to maintain the exclusive use of their property and to choose those with whom they would interact (even to the point of pre-emptively exlcuding some) there would be no registry. No one would care to spend a penny for something that was unnecessary.

Unfortunately, as you so articulately prove, there is...

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

The court decision was not about 1st Amendment or legitimate business practices. It was that there was no current law that allowed the FTC to perform the function of creating a 'don't call" registry. A problem that is rapidly being corrected.

Oklahoma Judge was consistent with your description and subsequent Congressional legislation.

The Colorado Judge is playing the 1st Amendment card...

CZ52'

[cordex]

In the end, this isn't about legal technicalities as much as it is a burning desire by a large number of people in this country to simply be left alone.
Finally, an honest answer.
"Screw the legalities, I just want this!"
I have ZERO obligation to allow you into my home, physically or virtually.
True. I agree fully. 100% Right there with you. My full support.
The way I see it, your side is the one who is seeking Federal intervention from the Judiciary to enforce an imaginary 1st Amendment right to invade my home.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. How is anyone invading your home? Calling a line you choose to leave open to anyone isn't "invading your home".

You pay for a phone line that can be reached by anyone and that can reach anyone. The phone company provides this. Suddenly, you realize that you don't really want this at all, so the obvious solution is to get the government to fix your problem?
If you explain why your 1st Amendment rights extend into my kitchen, I'll concede the point, because that's where the argument stands from a legal basis on 9/26/2003.
Your phone line is open to anyone to call. If you don't want to talk to a Telespammer, or a politician, or a survey taker, or an annoying neighbor ... you hang up the phone. The ringing of your phone is entirely under your control.
Because I live on a town maintained road with a house number that is visible from the street does not provide anyone the right to ignore the No Trespassing signs that are posted per legal requirements at my location.
Agreed.
But it doesn't give you the right to make me pay to have gov't employees post the signs either.
Your arrogance about your right to come into my home virtually is appalling and consistent with the motivations that have brought this registry into existence.
Come again? To my knowledge I have never entered your home or called you. If you only want certain people to call your home, you are welcome to purchase a system that effectively password protects your phone line.

Why is this such a problem?
The right to own property in the United States and secure it for my private use is not an open question.
No one questioned that right.
If you and others like you would show some fundamental respect for the right of any human being to exert their right to maintain the exclusive use of their property and those with whom they would interact, there would be no registry. No one would care to spend a penny for something that was unnecessary.
You have exclusive use of your property - with or without a "no call list". You do not have exclusive control of the telephone networks.

If you want to be open to phone calls, you leave the phone on. If you don't, you unplug it or install a call manager.

Again, I'm getting nowhere. Touchy issue. Who knew that the telephone would be such a major civil liberties issue ...

[Hkmp5sd]

Your phone line is open to anyone to call. If you don't want to talk to a Telespammer, or a politician, or a survey taker, or an annoying neighbor ... you hang up the phone. The ringing of your phone is entirely under your control.

If you want to be open to phone calls, you leave the phone on. If you don't, you unplug it or install a call manager.

Does this mean that since your internet connection is open for anyone to access, hackers have the right to break in? If you don't want them to break in, you can put security software on the PC. If the hacker still gets in, it must mean you really didn't want to stop him or you would have had even stronger protection or would have unplugged your connection.

[cordex]

Does this mean that since your internet connection is open for anyone to access, hackers have the right to break in? If you don't want them to break in, you can put security software on the PC. If the hacker still gets in, it must mean you really didn't want to stop him or you would have had even stronger protection or would have unplugged your connection.
No. Your computer is not designed to accept connections from anybody at any time. If you ran a web server, then that would be different.

Derek has put up this website. He has chosen to make it available to everyone.

If he didn't want people to access it, he would either have to put up a more restrictive security protocol, or turn off the computer.

What if the gov't produced a list of 50,000,000 websites that said that they didn't want any unauthorized users to to access them and Derek put this page on the list? Anyone who went to them have to pay a $11,000 fine. Sound good?

[CZ52GUY]

Finally, an honest answer.
"Screw the legalities, I just want this!"

To date, no legal challenge has been brought forward that has any sound legal basis behind it.

The Oklahoma decision was countered by Congressional legislation.

The Colorado decision is bogus based on an imagined 1st Amendment argument.

It is you sir, that is saying - - - - - you to those who have requested you leave them alone.

I would think that in reality, the FTC would be providing a service so that legitimate companies would not have to maintain their own private Do Not Call registries. Those cost savings and the elimination of those that would be inherently hostile to the encounter anyway, should make the marketing process more efficient.


True. I agree fully. 100% Right there with you. My full support.


Then take advantage of FTC D-N-C registry and only call folks who might love to hear from you.


I'm sorry, I don't understand. How is anyone invading your home? Calling a line you choose to leave open to anyone isn't "invading your home".

You pay for a phone line that can be reached by anyone and that can reach anyone. The phone company provides this. Suddenly, you realize that you don't really want this at all, so the obvious solution is to get the government to fix your problem?

I'm engaging in hyperbole ;), however, the borders of my property are not only physical but virtual. The legal argument on the table as of 9/26/2003 is a 1st Amendment one.

I argue your right to free speech ends at my property line. My phone is within those secured borders.

I've taken reasonable steps to harden my perimeter by:
1) Getting an unlisted number at my expense
2) Paying for anonymous call blocking at my expense
3) Paying for caller-ID at my expense

These steps are clearly designed to take the "open to the public" sign down, and the virtual "no trespassing sign" is already up.

Your phone line is open to anyone to call. If you don't want to talk to a Telespammer, or a politician, or a survey taker, or an annoying neighbor ... you hang up the phone. The ringing of your phone is entirely under your control.

By getting an unlisted line, my number clearly IS NOT OPEN TO ANYONE TO CALL. I pay to keep a PRIVATE NUMBER, PRIVATE. Private means that no one can claim a right of public use of that number to engage in commerce because it clearly I-S N-O-T P-U-B-L-I-C.


Agreed.
But it doesn't give you the right to make me pay to have gov't employees post the signs either.

As I see it, I'm actually am paying additional costs for the Registry, beyond the private line, anonymous call blocking, and caller-id because folks like yourself believe they have a 1st Amendment right to virtually enter my home.

Again, that is the legal argument on the table 9/26/2003 per the Colorado decision your industry pursued, seeking Federal Judicial intervention to force your way onto my property, even after I've taken steps to keep you out.



Come again? To my knowledge I have never entered your home or called you. If you only want certain people to call your home, you are welcome to purchase a system that effectively password protects your phone line.

Why is this such a problem?



You have asserted a right to virtually enter my home by your support for the Colorado decision, or are you engaging in a "forget the legalities" argument?

I have already taken steps to keep you and your colleagues out, your suggestion that you have a right to insist I expend additional $$ when your industry purports a 1st Amendment privilege in my home again, is an effective way of making my point.


No one questioned that right.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comments related to my "enumerated right to be left alone" being somewhat artificial. I'd say there is objective evidence to the contrary that "no one questioned that right".


You have exclusive use of your property - with or without a "no call list". You do not have exclusive control of the telephone networks.

Paying for an unlisted line clearly provides me the exclusive right to use that line and determine inbound and outbound traffic on it.


If you want to be open to phone calls, you leave the phone on. If you don't, you unplug it or install a call manager.

Again, such appalling arrogance to insist that because I have a telephone, I have agreed to harassment...so very sad that a member of this board has such disregard for the personal property and privacy rights of others.


Again, I'm getting nowhere. Touchy issue. Who knew that the telephone would be such a major civil liberties issue ...

You are getting nowhere because within this thread you are employing tactics consistent with the hard sell individuals that fail to acknowledge polite attempts to disengage from conversation and polite requests to refrain from further contact.

This industry has brought this on themselves, as will the SPAM crowd fairly soon I'd prognositcate.

Your industry needs to come up with a better "legal argument" than the artificial 1st Amendment line that the Colorado decision cites.

I sincerely believe this Federal registry could be a win-win for both sides of the discussion.

Legitimate business men do not wish to alienate potential customers or waste energy harassing those who really have no interest in purchasing their wares. Efficient marketing concepts lead to lower cost of sales which lead to a better bottom line. That 50M+ Americans are willing to sign up for and pay for a consolidated registry for your industry should save you folks millions annually, perhaps more.

Trying to engage in a frontal assault on those who have clearly posted the Keep Out! sign invites reciprocal energy in repelling that assault which is what the registry represents.

CZ52'

[Hkmp5sd]

If he didn't want people to access it, he would either have to put up a more restrictive security protocol, or turn off the computer.

But it is still illegal for someone to try to break into his server, whether or not he has protection. Yet anyone may freely log onto his server and join in the conversation.

What if the gov't produced a list of 50,000,000 websites that said that they didn't want any unauthorized users to to access them and Derek put this page on the list? Anyone who went to them have to pay a $11,000 fine. Sound good?

It is not that they cannot call. It is they cannot call with the intention of trying to sell me something. If someone went to my website which was listed as not permitting advertisements and started posting ads about their product, absolutely nail them with a $11,000 fine.

[CZ52GUY]

What if the gov't produced a list of 50,000,000 websites that said that they didn't want any unauthorized users to to access them and Derek put this page on the list? Anyone who went to them have to pay a $11,000 fine. Sound good?

You are confusing government intervention with voluntary participation.

Your argument falls down because absolutely no one is required to sign up for Do Not Call.

50M+ people signed up voluntarily.

The industry claims that its members maintain DNC lists of their own.

This is a way to promote legitimate commerce and to restrict illegitimate business practice.

A consolidated list saves money, take it and be greatful we are willing to fund it so you no longer have to.

You only face reciprocity if you call those who have indicated that they don't want to be called.

Please explain to me why a voluntary list that the public is willing to pay for and participate in which only calls for penalties to those who violate the privacy rights of those who requested is wrong?

It isn't because the 1st guarantees you the right to harass me...try again...

CZ52'

[tiberius]

I don't understand the problem. This will only help the telemarketing industry. The government has gone to the trouble of providing them with a list of people who do not want them to call, therefore saving their time by preventing them from calling people not interested in their "services". They are actually HELPING the telemarketers :)

[cordex]

Then take advantage of FTC D-N-C registry and only call folks who might love to hear from you. folks like yourself believe they have a 1st Amendment right to virtually enter my home.Again, that is the legal argument on the table 9/26/2003 per the Colorado decision your industry pursued, seeking Federal Judicial intervention to force your way onto my property, even after I've taken steps to keep you out.I have already taken steps to keep you and your colleagues outYour industry needs to comesup with a better "legal argument" than the artificial 1st Amendment line that the Colorado decision cites.A consolidated list saves money, take it and be greatful we are willing to fund it so you no longer have to.
Friend,
Neither myself, nor the company I work for engages in - or has ever engaged in - residential telemarketing. We have two people who do cold-calling into other businesses to drum up business for our product.

I am not a member of the industry you hate so much. Do not accuse me of it.
I argue your right to free speech ends at my property line. My phone is within those secured borders.
Would you then say that anyone who calls uninvited is breaking and entering?
Paying for an unlisted line clearly provides me the exclusive right to use that line and determine inbound and outbound traffic on it.
Does it now?
I thought that paying for an unlisted number merely means that the phone company wouldn't release it to the general public.
Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comments related to my "enumerated right to be left alone" being somewhat artificial. I'd say there is objective evidence to the contrary that "no one questioned that right".
You put in an open telephone line (anyone who dials the number can connect with your phone, right?). As such, you give tacit permission to be called. Your right to be secure in your property is not violated by getting a phone call.
Trying to confuse the right to own property with the supposed "right" to not be annoyed doesn't even make sense.

Your argument falls down because absolutely no one is required to sign up for Do Not Call.
No one is forced to sign up for the "do not visit my website" list either. So?
Please explain to me why a voluntary list that the public is willing to pay for and participate in which only calls for penalties to those who violate the privacy rights of those who requested is wrong?
"The public" means me. I don't want to support bigger government. So, "The public" doesn't support this.

Okay guys, I'm through. Obviously your god given right to get the government to protect you from having to hang up the phone is worth whatever federal expansion necessary. I don't have the time or inclination to argue this further.

[CZ52GUY]

Friend,
Neither myself, nor the company I work for engages in - or has ever engaged in - residential telemarketing. We have two people who do cold-calling into other businesses to drum up business for our product.

I am not a member of the industry you hate so much. Do not accuse me of it.

Your passionate advocacy for the industry made me believe otherwise. Whether a member of or an apologist for telemarketers, we violently disagree on personal privacy rights and the definition of "legitimate business practice".

Would you then say that anyone who calls uninvited is breaking and entering?

No, Trespassing is the appropriate equivalency.

Does it now?
I thought that paying for an unlisted number merely means that the phone company wouldn't release it to the general public.

You arrogantly believe that my private line is public because it exists on the network. I would amend my board brothers line to say "Ignorance can be cured, stupidy is forever, but arrogance must be confronted".


You put in an open telephone line (anyone who dials the number can connect with your phone, right?). As such, you give tacit permission to be called. Your right to be secure in your property is not violated by getting a phone call.


My driveway will accommodate all sorts of traffic, my No Trespassing sign mitigates any misunderstanding any misguided individual might have regarding this property being for public use. There is no "tacit approval".

My right to secure my borders is violated when "callers" whether physical or virtual violate No Trespassing signs which is what FTC's DNC registry really is.

Trying to confuse the right to own property with the supposed "right" to not be annoyed doesn't even make sense.

Your lack of intellectual capacity to understand that is consistent with the root cause for the registry being created.


No one is forced to sign up for the "do not visit my website" list either. So?

Your analogy breaks down completely because your premise was that the government imposed a restriction. People voluntarily signed up for DNC.

"The public" means me. I don't want to support bigger government. So, "The public" doesn't support this.

You do not appear in the dictionary next to the definition of the word public.

We live in a representative democracy who has heard the public, voted overwhelmingly to create this registry at their direction. Until a legitimate "legal argument" proves to me otherwise, I'll support the registry.


Okay guys, I'm through. Obviously your god given right to get the government to protect you from having to hang up the phone is worth whatever federal expansion necessary. I don't have the time or inclination to argue this further.

If telemarketers and their apologists didn't believe they had an inalienable right (which the 1st was claimed to be...an expression of liberty), we wouldn't need the feds to pay to consolidate private DNC lists and enforce their observance.

CZ52'

[Bruce H]

i don't care one way or the other. I have several cans of canned air horn for this foolishness. If I'm called I can respond however I want.

[CZ52GUY]

...selling canned air horns...


That I'd be interested in :D .

CZ52'

[bobs1066]

It's the darnedest thing, I was wandering thru Cabela's this week & discovered they sell air horns that come with a little pump that looks like a bike tire pump to fill the horn's air tank. No more buying freon. I love this country.! :D

[cordex]

As easy as it would be to respond to your points, I said I was done with this, and I meant it. However, I will respond to unnecessary personal insults.
You arrogantly believe that my private line is public because it exists on the network. I would amend my board brothers line to say "Ignorance can be cured, stupidy is forever, but arrogance must be confronted".Your lack of intellectual capacity to understand that is consistent with the root cause for the registry being created.
Sir,
I have not refered to you as arrogant for holding views contrary to mine, nor have I made comments regarding your intellectual capacity, or lack thereof. I ask nothing but the same polite courtesy in return.

This is an issue you obviously feel extremely strongly about, and one that we are unable to agree on. That is, however, no reason to resort to insults and attribution of characteristics that you know nothing about.

[hammer4nc]

No one has responded to tiberius' very cogent post:
This will only help the telemarketing industry. The government has gone to the trouble of providing them with a list of people who do not want them to call, therefore saving their time by preventing them from calling people not interested in their "services". They are actually HELPING the telemarketers

Stated another way, the DNC list is only another filter, which would overlay whatever other criteria are currently used by the telemarketers to generate leads. Net result is a more receptive audience, higher response rate. Why would they want to waste time irritating people? Even with the DNC list, they still will never run out of numbers to call...why all this hoopla about industry layoffs? Perhaps the 2 or 3 thr members who are telemarketers, can give us a short primer on the psychology of selling to unwilling customers?

On another point, excluding charities and politicians from abiding by the list is hypocritical (what else is new).

[XLMiguel]

Tiberius nailed it. And I think the public has made it's desire in this matter pretty clear, and Congress seems to be scrabling to sort out the 'legalities'. It's a shame that civility has declined to a degree that people don't understand it's not nice to bother people in thier own homes. I have "No Soliciting" signs on my front door and mailbox (and I guess I need to add "No Proselitizing", too). Woe be unto them what do not heed (though I do make exceptions for Girl Scout cookies and on the evening of Oct 31).

I've been in sales/marketing for a long time, and I can tell you that only a fool annoys the public. It takes a lot of work to move thru the undifferentated masses to identify suspects, then turn them into prospects, then qualified prospects, and ultimately convert them into customers. Why you would waste time (the one thing nobody gets more of) to pursue people who have clearly stated that they aren't interested. The odds are tough enough as it is. B2B, B2G telemarketing during business hours has it's legitimate and mutually benficial uses when done properly, but bothering people who have said "I do not want to be bothered at home" is just wrong. Retail/B2C telemarketers need to find real work.

[glocksman]

My $.02:

Indiana has a 'Do Not Call' list.
My name is on that list.
I added my name to that list because I work 2nd shift and sleep odd hours.
In other words, phone calls that are not an emergency are not welcome when I am sleeping during the late morning hours.
I couldn't shut the phone off in case a call was an emergency.
I used to average 2 calls a day before the list.
Now it's more like 1 call every 2-3 weeks, if that often.

I bless the state legislature for this law. :)
It needs to be implemented nationally as well.

My right to sleep uninterrupted by undesired and unwelcome solicitations is more important than any imaginary First Amendment rights claimed by the telemarketers.


Now if they'd only do something about the idiots with 2000 watt car stereos and 15 inch subwoofers.:fire:

[CZ52GUY]

As easy as it would be to respond to your points, I said I was done with this, and I meant it. However, I will respond to unnecessary personal insults.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You arrogantly believe that my private line is public because it exists on the network. I would amend my board brothers line to say "Ignorance can be cured, stupidy is forever, but arrogance must be confronted".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of intellectual capacity to understand that is consistent with the root cause for the registry being created.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sir,
I have not refered to you as arrogant for holding views contrary to mine, nor have I made comments regarding your intellectual capacity, or lack thereof. I ask nothing but the same polite courtesy in return.

This is an issue you obviously feel extremely strongly about, and one that we are unable to agree on. That is, however, no reason to resort to insults and attribution of characteristics that you know nothing about.

It is you sir, who have failed to acknowledge a fundamental right to control access to my home. You have allocated responsibility to me that is beyond reason. I have taken appropriate steps. You are unwilling to acknowledge that the confines of my home, where my phone reside, are my domain.

You believe you have a fundamental right to enter that space because I have a telephone. You could not be more wrong.

I believe your failure to acknowledge the limits of where you can go, and the prohibitions I can put in place to prevent access to you are indeed arrogant. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck. I do not intend to insult. I intend to confront an attitude of arrogance that you have displayed by indicating that my prudent measures to prevent unwanted, and unauthorized access to my home via telephone are not within my pervue because I have a telephone that is connected to a broader network. That's arrogance sir. I confront you because your attitude needs confronting.

Your own words "the public is me", betray you. None of us can claim exclusive rights to that word. None of us can claim a "UN Security Council style veto" to legislation that we aren't fond of. Clearly the numbers in Congress were overwhelming and reflective of public sentiment.

As to the "intellectual capacity" comment...your posts clearly show that you either are incapable, or unwilling to respect the privacy of others.

Not you, not anyone has a right to enter my home without my authorization whether physically, or verbally via phone when I have chosen to restrict that access by the measures already described.

I did not intend to insult you. I did intend to vigorously oppose you.

After reviewing your comments and mine, I stand by what I have said.

I sincerely hope that some day you will grow to respect the privacy of others, and understand that you are not "the public". You are one of many, joined under a common Constitution, living in a great nation. You live in a representative democracy where your neighbors have equivalent rights to pursue legal remedies (see the 1st previsions regarding petitioning for grievances) to issues of concern to them.

This is clearly an issue of great concern to your neighbors.

Telling them "they shouldn't answer their own phone" is consistent with an arrogant attitude.

Whenever I am challenged, I consider it a privilege because it gives me the opportunity to contemplate my position.

Either I will confirm, or revise my stance, based on the challenge presented.

You have helped me confirm my position.

For that, I am greatful for the encounter.

Best Wishes,

CZ52'

[CMichael]

I want to make a few points. Most or all of this has already been stated:

1) The federal government has no right tot get involved in this. The calls that are involved in my industry are local, not interstate. Powers not given to the federal government expressely in the constitution are supposed to go to the states. In real estate sales all the calls would be local.

2) If you don't want to get solicitation calls get an unpublished number. I have one and I have gotten perhaps one soliciting call in five years.

3) There is already a sagging economy. Giving a new big hit to the economy is very foolish. In real estate sales prospecting and looking for buyers in a certain area is important in doing business.

4) According to the "do not call" list law even past clients you can only contact for 18 months.

5) As Cordex eloquently stated if you have a telephone line you are giving tacit consent for anyone to call your phone.

6) I bet a good chunk of the approx. 50 million have bought stuff over the phone.

7) If someone really doesn't want to be disturbed there is a lot of stuff they can do such as getting an unlisted number, the zapper, caller ID, privacy manager.

8) It's interesting that the politicians know how important it is to use the phone for businesses becasue they exempted themselves when it comes to fundraising. That should say a lot.

[hammer4nc]

Re: Cmichael's points:

1. My state (NC) is implementing a state DNC list. The atty. general has been vocal in stating that even if the national level fails, the state ban will still stand. My question: How can a state ban apply to calls originating out of state? Seems unenforceable at that level.

2. Without getting into a legal argument over the question of having a phone line=implied consent for all sales calls (which I think is false); will you agree that the telemarketing industry has brought this on themselves? If you want to blame someone, how about DirectTV, or Capital One calling me six times a freakin' day!!!

3. I totally agree with you about the exemption for DNC granted to politcians, charities is bogus.

Now, how about a direct answer to the question I posed earlier? Why would anyone want to waste their time irritating people?

I'll close with a news tidbit from the judicial branch, office of hypocrisy: Apparently Judge Edward Nottingham, who issued the decision that the DNC list is unconstitutional; has himself signed up for the DNC list!

Link:http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=41923

[standingbear]

sorry...i think they are extremly annoying.my answering machine flashes like a strobe lite from all the telemarketers.regular non spamming calls cant get through.hang up after hang up.they keep trying till they get through-at the very most worst times.expecting an important call?phone rings..its someone selling siding.running to grab the phone later..its someone selling waterproofing.why should i have to pay extra out of pocket expenses to allow my phone line to NOT be used as a marketing tool?if i want to get siding or waterproofing,ill get out the yellowpages and contact your business,i wont call your private home number and bother you after hours.i cant be convinced to buy something i dont want with money i dont have.end of story.

[greyhound]

I think the reason people are so upset by these court rulings are:

1. People have been complaining about the nuisance of telemarketing for a LOOOONG time.

2. With the new national DNC list, it finally seemed that the calls would be almost eliminated.

3. When it seemed to be snatched away at the last minute, folks naturally got hot.

Personally, I think the most eye-opening thing about all this is the way Congress "hopped to", to get the necessary laws passed to allow this.
None of the usual "Bush lied, soldiers died" or "Democrats are terror appeasers" on this, when you have overwhelmingly popular support on a minor but emotional issue see how fast "DC gridlock" goes away.:banghead:

I did sign up for the list, but I also try to remember that some poor schmoe had to take that crappy low paying job to try to get by. I always say, "No thank you, have a nice day" and hang up before they can go into their pitch. For me, no one making minimum wage (as opposed to going on welfare or sticking out their hand to "Uncle Sugar") deserves to have an air horn blown in their ear, though I do understand that people get quite testy about invasions of privacy.....

[Hkmp5sd]

If you don't want to get solicitation calls get an unpublished number.

Perhaps someone could explain to me why *I* should be required to *pay extra* for an unlisted telelphone number and/or Caller-ID in an attempt to *minimize* being annoyed by telemarketers.

Pehaps while they are at it, they could explain how an unlisted telephone number prevents a dialing machine, which dials every telephone number in an area code and prefix, from reaching that person.

If it is not legal or permissible for the government to maintain a "don't call" list, fine. I am a customer of a telephone company. That company should maintain a list of its customers that do not want to be annoyed. If a telemarketer wishes to use my telephone company's equipment to contact my telephone company's customers, let them BUY a list of telelphone numbers that my telelphone company does not want them to call before they may use my local telephone company's system. They then have permission to use my telephone company's system to contact the remainder of their customers.

[c_yeager]

If you don't want to get solicitation calls get an unpublished number.

Why is this so much better than simply signing up for the do not call registry? If i leave my front door unlocked is taht an open invitation for people to come into my house? All the do not call registry is is a means of people making it CLEAR that they dont want to be called. And it gives the ability to enforce that will. To my mind the registry is simply a "no tresspasing" sign that works for the phone. No one is on the list who doesnt WANT to be on the list. If someone doesnt WANT to recieve calls on their telephone then why do they have to.

[CZ52GUY]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

To borrow money on credit of the United States.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...

The problem on the table is as identified within this thread.

Those who telemarket believe they have an "inalienable right" to harass people simply because they have a phone.

They believe that the burden of proof resides with the citizen within his own home.

They believe in too many cases, that the individual on the other end of the phone has a fiscal responsibility to their "general welfare" to listen to and act favorably on the solicitation, whether it is welcome or not.

According to Nottingham, these plaintiffs also have a 1st Amendment right to enter our homes and harass us.


Having a phone DOES NOT provide objective evidence that one has agreed to accept solicitations.

The burden of proof in this case rests with the annoying telemarketers.

We have no responsibility to accept these calls, or to provide tangible contributions to their "general welfare".

NO ONE has 1st Amendment rights in my home that I don't grant to them. "Guests" have the right to be evicted at my pleasure (as I clearly recognize when I am a guest in the home of another).


I am thankful to the telemarketers and their apologists who have contributed to this thread because they have reaffirmed my belief that such a consolidated DNC created not only for my benefit, but for theirs, is a worthwhile expenditure per the Section 8 reference cited.

CZ52'

[WvaBill]

Philosophically, I would be willing to deal with telemarketers on my own in exchange for limited .gov.

The first amend. does not protect someone desiring to introduce commercial speech where it is unwanted by property owners.

[Pebcac]

I really don't see this as any different from anti-spam laws. The vast majority of people don't want to be bothered by telemarketers, spammers, or door-to-door salesman. They are within their rights to not be disturbed in their homes, and it's the government's job to protect those rights; hence, the do-not-call laws, anti-spam laws, and anti-peddling ordinances. The FTC is chartered to regulate trade, and the FCC is to regulate communications. I see this as much an FCC issue as FTC, but whichever agency chooses to help enable me to stop out-of-state companies from ringing my phone all day long is welcome.

To those who would invade the peace of my home with incessant phone ringing: you do not have a right to breach the peace of my home on a device for which I've paid to use. When you pay for the line, you can call it all you want. All the talk of caller ID, unlisted numbers, and other measures are moot. I should not be expected to pay out of my own pocket for your bad business practice.

If I could sign a piece of paper at the post office to stop bulk junk mail, I would do so.

I have already signed up on the do-not-call list at both the state and federal levels.

I do not blow air horns at telemarketers, nor do I swear at them or mistreat them. I do not respect their choice of employment, but they have to eat, too. I simply tell them "I'm not interested, thanks," and hang up. I would prefer they not call at all. I do not believe I have implied that they may call simply because I have a phone line installed at my residence.

I also work in the real estate industry, albeit in a non-sales capacity. I am highly amused by the hair pulling and gnashing of teeth currently on display at my workplace over this law. :D

As usual, the only ones who want this kind of thing to be allowed to continue are the ones who benefit from it. The government-size and free-speech arguments are empty. This isn't a pork-barrel project. This is not about a fundamental human right; therefore, it is subject to regulation, and the people have spoken resoundingly. This nation is still a republic, is it not?

[bogie]

Folks, you just gotta have the right frame of mind.

ENJOY your time with the telemarketer...

====

Oh, this sounds great! You're selling vacation property! And I only have to use it one week out of the year? I think I'll buy this! But I've got a few questions... Is it handicapped accessible? I have to ride a chair - and the doors have to be really wide, because it's an extra sturdy chair. And I have to be on the first floor, of course... I get claustrophobic in elevators. (increase volume) I'm NOT getting on an elevator. You CANNOT make me get on an elevator... Okay... I'm calming down... Now, what sort of amenities... I see there's a golf course - and a tennis court - is there a locker room? Is it handicapped accessible? I like locker rooms. I just like to sit in 'em all day and talk to people. And I see there's a sauna - I hope I fit in that. I'll have to find a towel tho... Hmmm... Oh, and here's my favorite! A hot tub! I hope I fit in that! Will be at this sales meeting you're talking about? I'd like to talk with you in the hot tub.

====

Works just fine with either sex. A variation involves large rottweilers. Just thought of another - you're a long-haul trucker, and would love to take advantage - you just need to park your rig somewhere... Oh, and they don't mind that you work for Acme Pig Hauling...

[jimpeel]

The only difference between the "do not call" list held and enforced by the government -- and you stating over the phone when the Telemarketers call to "Place me on your 'do not call' list" -- is instead of you getting the money for their violating your demand the government gets the money.

Isn't THAT special?

You've been robbed and you don't even know it. (Again)

[AZLibertarian]

A couple of points.....

IMO, a national Do-Not-Call registry is another element of the nanny state. I don't have any right to regulate who calls my number anymore than I have the right to prevent advertising in my local paper, or those annoying 'blow-in' cards in my Guns-N-Ammo magazine.

When the phone rings at dinner time you have a couple of choices.
You can ignore it and finish your dinner,
You can answer it rudely and then go on with your meal,
You can answer it nicely and begin a verrrrrry long conversation with the salesperson and then "decide" not to buy whatever they're selling--and then finish your meal, and do the dishes.
You can do the airhorn thingi, finish your meal, and have dessert.
You could do like Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No".

But as I see it, it is not the province of government to prevent the phone from ringing in the first place.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but a couple of points about the DNC...

It bans commercial calls, but not charitable or political soliticitations. How would one classify a phone call from the Girl Scouts selling their GS Cookies? If commercial calls are so intrusive, what about simple wrong numbers? Do we have the .gov regulate them as well? Where does this end, and who gets to decide what's junk, and what's not?

If we changed the argument to junk mail, why wouldn't the FTC get the power to regulate this too? Is the catalog from Cabela's junk mail, or is it eagerly awaited? Why would I let the .gov decide this?

It seems to me that there are some awfully thin skins here in this debate. If the ringing phone disturbs you this deeply, just take it off the hook. For me, it just isn't that big of a deal.

As always, JMO, YMMV, I could be wrong. I'm proud that my Congressman, Jeff Flake voted against this thing.

And, CZ, just so you don't misunderstand me, Mrs. AZLib is on your side in this debate.

[CMichael]

I think at the the very least it should be a state law. The law in MI exempted real estate salespeople. When there is a house listed, it's pretty common for real estate salespeople to call an area and look for buyers.

I agree about computer generated calls. That should stop.

[Hkmp5sd]

I have the right to prevent advertising in my local paper, or those annoying 'blow-in' cards in my Guns-N-Ammo magazine.
I disagree. When you buy a newpaper or magazine, you know they contain advertisements. In fact, advertisements offset the cost you have to pay for the magazine. It you don't want to see the ads, then you do not buy that magazine.

If the major gripe against the list is the fact that it is compiled and maintained by the government, fine. Forget it. Pass a law that allows me to inform my local telephone carrier that I do not wish to receive these annoying telephone calls. Then require the telemarketers to inform my local telephone company they are in fact trying to peddle something. Then allow my local telephone company to block those calls if requested.

If you can argue that telemarketers have a constitutional right to call any telephone number, then you must give that same right to prank and obscene callers. They have just as much right to call and voice their message as long as they do not threaten you.

[mod12]

i pay for basic service. i feel that i should have the right to limit access to those i WANT TO TALK TO. if i neglected to lock my front door is it your right to walk in and beard me in front the t.v. that I can choose to turn off?get outta here! why should i pay more than basic service for your ilk? you're operating in a a faceless domain where you accept no responsibility for your actions. i don't have to pay to keep YOU out of my house! i'm tired of calls from people volunteering to take care of my sons' college loans, he's in iraq! i'm tired of people asking for donations, i'm capable of making those decisions. get out of my ear. if i want to talk to you, ILL call. you're a pain that lingers and lingers and lingers and............. come to my front door and i'd be happy to explain how i feel, to your face. you people are leeches preying on the ignorant, poor and unknowing. you have no guts! a private message will provide my address if you're within driving distance. the next one of your minions who says that guy was an ...hole, attribute it to me. please! you're a faceless, sucking drone!

[AZLibertarian]

I'm not pointing fingers here at anyone, but it seems to me that a central part of the argument in favor of the Do Not Call legislation is the annoyance issue. One question I have is where does the responsibility for the annoyance lie?

For example, I live in a semi-rural area. My backyard is very quiet and dark and I like it that way. When we visit friends who live in more standard density subdivisions, my wife and I always end up looking at each other because we can "hear" all the noises that go along with living in a neighborhood. The kid down the street practicing with his band, the dog barking three houses down, etc. Now no-one else "hears" any of this as it is just background noise to them, but my wife and I agree that we'd have a hard time living without our "quiet". Conversely, our house is about a mile off the end of a runway at a small general aviation airport. Airplanes are overhead all day, and much of the night. We don't "hear" them at all, but I'm sure that many of our friends couldn't live here because they'd be bothered by all the planes. In other words, does the plane cause the annoyance, or is the person prone to being bothered by their own set of things that annoy them?

Relating this to the DNC issue, are certain people more sensitive to whatever annoyance goes along with telemarketing calls? I maintain that if one is so terribly bothered by getting a call from a telemarketer, then the onus of doing something about it lies primarily with that individual, and not the government. Screen your calls, take it off the hook, get an unlisted number, whatever--but don't force your solution to your problems on everyone else...especially when it involves a tax-paid solution from government.

I'll grant that there can be a place where the volume of calls may add up to a form of harrassment, but I don't think we're talking about that here. From what I've read, one call to someone on a DNC list can result in fines. This is well below a reasonable threshold for harrassment.

I believe there are serious Constitutional problems with the DNC concept. It says that charities and politicians have free speech rights to make a telemarketing call, yet businesses do not. And as I said earlier, there are calls where charities and business mix...Girl Scouts selling cookies. And will this concept extend to the mail? Which is the junk mail--the flyer from Dillards, the refinancing offer from a mortgage company, or the latest Cheaper-than-Dirt catalog? As I see it, it's all in the eye of the beholder--and that's an awful poor way to begin to legislate away the annoyances of our lives.

As a practical matter, businesses don't want to waste their time or money on advertising to people who have no interest in their products or services. They make these solitications to people they reasonably believe might be interesting in what they're peddling, but bothering people for no reason is wasteful and unproductive. For instance, here in AZ, I don't see too many advertisements for snow shovels. Sure, a business could do it, but they'd be wasting their advertising budget by blowing it here in AZ...nobody would buy their shovels.

[Kcustom45]

Just a couple things that struck me as odd.

We live in a representative democracy who has heard the public, voted overwhelmingly to create this registry at their direction. Until a legitimate "legal argument" proves to me otherwise, I'll support the registry.
So that means that you support all those gun laws that were passed?


Perhaps someone could explain to me why *I* should be required to *pay extra* for an unlisted telelphone number and/or Caller-ID in an attempt to *minimize* being annoyed by telemarketers. Perhaps you could explain to me why *I* have to pay extra to support a DNC list that I don't want.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like when it is convenient for people they want the government to interfere in their lives, but when it isn't they are also usually the first ones crying foul play.

Me I can take care of myself by getting caller ID or by simply screening my calls, but then again that’s how I was raised.

[Hkmp5sd]

The people that are against the list will soon be subjected to an interesting side effect of the law. As it is now, the law will go into effect and be enforced. Given the number of telemarketers in the US will initially remain the same and a large portion of the possible telephone numbers they can call will be prohibited, those that do not sign up will see a marked increase in the number of calls from telemarketers. :) Enjoy!

[cordex]

cordex [...] why should i pay more than basic service for your ilk? you're operating in a a faceless domain where you accept no responsibility for your actions. i don't have to pay to keep YOU out of my house!
Sir?
get out of my ear. if i want to talk to you, ILL call. you're a pain that lingers and lingers and lingers and............. come to my front door and i'd be happy to explain how i feel, to your face. you people are leeches preying on the ignorant, poor and unknowing. you have no guts! a private message will provide my address if you're within driving distance. the next one of your minions who says that guy was an ...hole, attribute it to me. please! you're a faceless, sucking drone!
Again ...
I am done with debating this issue here, but I'll address personal insults, misinformation and outright lies.

I am not, and have never been a telemarketer. The company that I work for does not and hever has done telemarketing beyond the standard business to business calls that nearly any company will use. Your insults are unfounded and misdirected. Just because I choose to challenge something does not mean I am a member of the group it affects.

You, sir, would benefit from learning and practicing basic politeness. Especially on a forum such as The High Road.

[mod12]

i've got your "basics' right here! and don't call me sir!

[cordex]

and don't call me sir!
If it is "ma'am", then I apologize.
If, on the other hand, you are simply refusing common courtesy to be offensive ...

[jimpeel]

The people that are against the list will soon be subjected to an interesting side effect of the law. As it is now, the law will go into effect and be enforced. Given the number of telemarketers in the US will initially remain the same and a large portion of the possible telephone numbers they can call will be prohibited, those that do not sign up will see a marked increase in the number of calls from telemarketers. Yes, we will. While you will be on a list that is enforced by the Nanny State, we will be able to continue to operate under the old rules of engagement.

If I say to the TMs "Please place me on your 'do not call' list" and they call after that, I get to tell them that they owe me the legally mandated fine for doing so. I get the money.

You, on the other hand, will have to call your local Nanny and complain to them that "Those nasty TMs called me and I'm on your list. Go whack their pee-pee for me!" They will then go and enforce your mandate by fining them for you AND they will be keeping ALL of the money. You will not see one thin dime of the largess.

I, on the other hand -- due to my ability to independently tell the TMs they have wronged me, instead of relying on a government entity to do it for me -- will be spending my largess on a new firearm, or ammo, or range time, or a night on the town, or ... or ... or ...

Ta-ta.:neener:

[jimpeel]

What happens when a person gives up a phone number but, during their rental of that number, they placed that number on the "do not call" list? Does the number get taken off of the list when it changes hands; or does it remain there thereby cheating someone who possibly wants to receive TM calls out of receiving them?

Are there any provisions for this in the law?

[Hkmp5sd]

Actually, telemarketers do not bother me. I haven't answered a telephone in over 15 years. Everyone gets to talk to my answering machine. If I don't recognize the number, the message gets deleted.

But I do think a person should have the ability to stop telemarketers from calling them. If it's a function of the nanny state, so be it. Obviously private industry isn't going to do it because there is no profit involved.

[BogBabe]

I, on the other hand -- due to my ability to independently tell the TMs they have wronged me, instead of relying on a government entity to do it for me

jimpeel, your "ability to independently tell the TMs they have wronged you" is a misperception. The TMs are required by law to maintain a do-not-call list and are required by law to place your number on it at your request and are required by law to not call you after have you instructed them to put your number on that list.

Let's do away with that law, shall we?

[jimpeel]

Perhaps you missed this part of the post while rushing to post your snappy rejoinder. If I say to the TMs "Please place me on your 'do not call' list" and they call after that, I get to tell them that they owe me the legally mandated fine for doing so. I get the money.The old law was fine as was. The new one enriches the government and you get -- well -- NOTHING. I mean outside of the joy of calling the government snitch line to turn them in perhaps.

[Pebcac]

Gee, it must be very easy to drag a large corporation's lawyers into court and get money out of them after their telemarketers called you twice. :rolleyes:

Me, I'm not interested in their money. I'd just like them to stop calling, and I really don't see the problem with being able to add my number to a government-funded database. I'm willing to pay that micro-fraction of a single percentage of my wage to do this. Just like I'm willing to pay for the FDA so I'm not being regularly sold rotten meat or bogus drugs.

And no, I don't think that there should be any exceptions on first amendment grounds - not for politicians, churches, not-for-profits, or anyone else. It's not a free-speech issue.

What would be very, very nice is if the phone companies would step up and maintain their own DNC lists. No government expense required - but it would still take a law to force these companies to spend that money.

Now let me ask this: How many of you who are so against this "intrusion" of "big nanny government" would still think that way if these folks started wearing out your cell phones, for which you have limited minutes? 2nd question - how many of your kids are in public school? Taxes pay for that, too. The whole "big government" argument really makes me wish for the return of the tinfoil hat smiley. Read the Constitution again. It grants Congress the power to make laws and regulate trade, and this is trade regulation, pure and simple.

States' rights? Got that covered - state DNC laws don't apply to out-of-state companies, so the fed is within its right to regulate the behavior of interstate commerce.

I'm really surprised that such a small thing as a government-run DNC list can turn into such an argument on "nanny states," big government, and free speech. It ain't welfare. :D

[CZ52GUY]

Just a couple things that struck me as odd.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We live in a representative democracy who has heard the public, voted overwhelmingly to create this registry at their direction. Until a legitimate "legal argument" proves to me otherwise, I'll support the registry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So that means that you support all those gun laws that were passed?

When you can explain to me how telemarketers have a 1st Amendment right in my home, then I'll concede your point. Until then, I see no equivalency between Section 8 enumerated powers and 2nd Amendment prohibitions on restricting basic rights.

When the legislature or judiciary is acting within the text of described enumerated powers within the Constitution as written, then I must acknowledge that.

When the legislature or judiciary is acting contrary to a prohibition on infringement of a declared right, I oppose that action.

I don't oppose government action for the sake of opposing government action.

Perhaps you could explain to me why *I* have to pay extra to support a DNC list that I don't want.

Sure, because many times as part of a representative form of government, unanimous consent is not possible. For every piece of legislation that is passed within this country, there is likely a significant minority that would object to its provisions. In this instance, the passage of DNC appears to fall within Section 8 enumerated powers. The legal challenge (according to Nottingham) is based on 1st Amendment grounds, which is a bogus argument because no one has 1st Amendment rights to commercial speech within my abode, or yours.


Maybe it is just me, but it seems like when it is convenient for people they want the government to interfere in their lives, but when it isn't they are also usually the first ones crying foul play.

When the government is acting within Constitutional parameters, it is fairly clear that the government is going to act in some casis. It is legitimate for citizens to participate in the political process and support legislation that they believe is appropriate.

It appears you are taking a somewhat fundamentalist position that all government is bad, and any support of any government action is some betrayal of "the code". There is no code that says that THR members have to be antagonistic toward government action, or remove themselves from the political process. We all need to do so within the Constitutional boundaries, which it appears DNC falls into until a legal challenge more compelling than the bogus 1st Amendment one cited by Nottingham is brought forward.


Me I can take care of myself by getting caller ID or by simply screening my calls, but then again that’s how I was raised.

I was raised to jealously guard the privacy of my home, for very good reasons. I was raised not to concede to others the right to access my home whether physically, or virtually via telephone.

Once again, this industry brought this on themselves. That they would so aggressively pursue a legal strategy that indicates they believe they have a fundamental right to enter our home when a no trespassing sign has been put up is appalling.

I respect the privacy rights of others, and demand the same of others. That is how I was raised.

Best wishes,

CZ52'

[BrokenPaw]

What happens when a person gives up a phone number but, during their rental of that number, they placed that number on the "do not call" list? Does the number get taken off of the list when it changes hands; or does it remain there thereby cheating someone who possibly wants to receive TM calls out of receiving them? jimpeel, from what I read on the DNC-list web page, the rules are these:

Whenever a phone number is disconnected for any reason, it is removed from the DNC list.

Disconnected for non-payment? Removed from the list.
Discconnected because you voluntarily terminated service? Removed from the list.

So a person who starts new phone service gets to make the choice whether to place the number back on the list. A person who forgets to pay the phone bill gets to make the choice over and over and over... :)

-BP, staying out of the line of fire.

[BogBabe]

So a person who starts new phone service gets to make the choice whether to place the number back on the list. A person who forgets to pay the phone bill gets to make the choice over and over and over...

Wow, what a concept! The person who pays for the phone service actually gets to make their own decision in the matter.

[Mike Irwin]

You know it's funny, but over the past 10 or so days the telemarketer calls have tapered off to virtually nothing at my place...

[Hkmp5sd]

That's because they are all using the telephone properly. They're calling around looking for a job.

[hammer4nc]

In addition to Judge Nottingham having his number of the DNC list, we also find that the top 11 executives of the Direct Marketing Association, who are suing to stop the DNC list, also have their phone numbers on the DNC list!!!

link: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031001-083229-3936r.htm

Now that's entertainment!;)

[Mike Irwin]

"Jerry Cerasale, a DMA senior vice president, confirmed his home number is on the FTC's list. But he insisted he did not register and does not believe his wife signed up either.

"Somebody is obviously trying to embarrass me," he said. "This is one of the reasons we've been against the Internet sign-up. Anybody could put your number on the list."


Uh huh...

Right.

Just like the politicans who vote to keep guns out of the hands of regular Americans, but have permits themselves...

It's called HYPOCRISY.

:D

[jimpeel]

So a person who starts new phone service gets to make the choice whether to place the number back on the list. I thought there was a "drop dead" date for registering a number and that they are no longer taking numbers at this time. When will they be firing the number collection back up?

[jimpeel]

Wow, what a concept! The person who pays for the phone service actually gets to make their own decision in the matter.They were never not able to make that decision. The difference is that it used to be a verbal contract between the TM and you when you would say "Please place me on your 'do not call' list". Any violation of that contract and they were laible to you for monetary damages.

Now the contract is between the government and the TM, with you as the initiator. After that, you are out of the loop and any violation of that contract will require the TM to pay the government the money they used to have to pay to you.

That's the part that not too many of the posters here seem to be able to grasp. The government now gets your money for enforcing what you used to get money for enforcing yourself!

[BryanP]

There's one thing I've wondered in this whole debate. If you're a telemarketer, wouldn't you be grateful to have a huge list of people you know aren't interested in your products? You can cut down on wasted time and just move on to the other x million numbers in this country.

Call me crazy, but I don't buy products from people who bug me at home. Especially since some of us don't work normal hours all the time. It's bad enough to be called during dinner, but being called at what is effectively 3 in the morning is even worse.

[CZ52GUY]

If the TM can save a few $$ by having a willing public fund the consolidated DNC list AND avoid wasted money by targeting those that don't want to be bothered AND the disreputable businesses will help fund the program by the fines they'll pay...I see it as win-win-win.

I didn't plan to buy that retirement house on the beach with private DNC violation claims.

Section 8 gives necessary regulatory authority...the recent legislation to close a perceived loophole regarding the FTC specifically, passed by overwhelming majorities at light speed with overwhelming public support and is an example of democracy working for a change.

Again, back to my original post, the "legal claim" on the table is that the 1st Amendment applies to unwanted commercial speech in my home and yours.

There is no 1st Amendment basis for preventing the DNC list from going into effect.

I can handle the telemarketers. I oppose them in principle because I will never concede an artificial right of any commercial entity to gain access to my home, never.

HOWEVER, the bigger issue is with yet another Federal judge making the wrong ruling by abusing the document that should be constraining him.

That Federal judges seem to routinely use the Constitution as a spray and pray weapon without any fear of retribution is far more troubling than whether I have to check my voicemail because I refuse to have my dinner interrupted.

That issue is what folks are missing. That is what motivated me to pose the original question. That is what should unite THR members whether they approve of the DNC legislation or not.

The 1st isn't a toy to be trotted out for the sake of convenience. It is precious, as is the 2nd, as is the entire document.

Best Wishes,

CZ52'

[CMichael]

I want to make a few points:

1) The horn idea. Telemarketers are just making just trying to make a living to feed their family. Usually they don't make much money. I am always very pleasant to them. I realize they are just trying to make a living.

2) I agree with computer generated calls that they should be illegal.

3) Getting business by cold calling or even warm calling is massive. And many billions are contributed to our economy because of it. We are in a slow economic period. This wasn't too bright of an idea.

4) I think the law is too encompassing.

5) The politicians know how effective calling is to get business because they exempted themselves when it comes to fundraising.

[CZ52GUY]

1) I would not air horn a telemarketer. My response is "thanks for thinking of me, but I'm not interested, have a good day".

2) No argument there

3) I would disagree with your assertion of the success of cold calls based on the overwhelming voluntary participation in DNC. For every $ gained, there are many more wasted by intruding in the homes of people who do not wish to be bothered. The economy seems to be growing at a pace which exceeds expectations in spite of the DNC...we'll see over time if the legislation is enacted and the bogus 1st Amendment blockade is appropriately overturned if your assertions are correct.

4) I think the law is insufficiently encompassing because of the exemptions you cite in # 5.

5) I would guess that the FTC would be the wrong organization to monitor political speech...perhaps the FEC could be allocated that responsibility to ensure that invasive fundraising on behalf of politicians were restricted to those who are willing to be called. BTW, I've never donated a penny to a "nice young lady/man" who called on behalf of a candidate nor would I commit myself to supporting a candidate who used telemarketers to garner support. I would frankly be inclined to exclude that candidate from consideration. Similarly with charities...

Additionally, if NRA pursues this approach, my membership in that organization will be seriously reconsidered...

CZ52'

[gypsy3]

Wellllllll..I guess everyone can have their opnion. My state enacted a do not call list that went into effect the first of this year. My calls dropped from about a dozen or so per week to about 1 every month or so. That one being from charity, or one of the authorized ones that can call...
Right now we're getting a computer "Dead Call" about 3 times a day.
Problem with these is that the computer never gives up. If you don't get it on the first ring, someone else gets the call, you get silence, and the calls keep on coming until you can grab it first and ask them to stop calling..
Heck...I don't care...I'll play the game...keeps me off the streets.

[Mute]

How stupid are these people. You'd think a Do Not Call list would be a good thing as it helps them identify the people whom it would be a waste of time, money and effort to call. Targeted marketing is much more effective than cold calling.

[Mike Irwin]

"Now the contract is between the government and the TM, with you as the initiator. After that, you are out of the loop and any violation of that contract will require the TM to pay the government the money they used to have to pay to you.

That's the part that not too many of the posters here seem to be able to grasp. The government now gets your money for enforcing what you used to get money for enforcing yourself!"

I've grasped that point just fine, JimPeel.

And, quite frankly, I don't give a damn that the government is getting the money instead of me.

Chances are to collect that money from a TM who continued to call would be far more painful than it would be worth.

At its very outset it's a "I said this" vs. the TM's "He never said that." How to prove that the contract was ever entered into in the first place, unless you have an elaborate recording set up on your phone to record both ends of the conversation, which may or may not be illegal as all hell.

Also, with the bulk of telemarketers who call (I got calls from 17 separate marketers a few months ago when I stayed home to work one day), the record keeping would be a nightmare. Recovery of of damages would likely hinge on written logs with very specific information.

So, in reality, instead of freeing myself from the telemarketers, I'm spending even MORE time to ensure that they're abiding by that contract.

That is an INCREDIBLE pain in the butt, and in the end it's a self-defeating exercise.

But with a centralized DNC list, there's absolutely NO doubt about whether or not my number was on a list.

In other words, I don't want the telemarketer's money, and I sure as hell don't want to invest any MORE of my time in keeping the kind of records that would probably be necessary to pursue a successful claim for "damages."

I just want to be left alone in my own home in the little time I have to myself in the evenings, and the National DNC list offers that to me in spades.

[2dogs]

Appeals Court OKs Do-Not-Call Registry



Oct 7, 6:23 PM (ET)

By CINDY BROVSKY



DENVER (AP) - A federal appeals court Tuesday cleared the way for the Federal Trade Commission to operate the national do-not-call list, pending a court decision over whether the registry violates the telemarketing industry's free-speech rights.

The registry started last week, but its operation had been turned over from the FTC to the Federal Communications Commission because of concerns that the FTC had overstepped its legal authority.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FTC could run the registry while a challenge from telemarketers winds its way through the courts. Oral arguments were scheduled in Tulsa, Okla., on Nov. 10.

Some 50 million people have signed up for the free registry.


Late last month, U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham of Denver had barred the FTC from putting the registry into effect because the list unfairly blocks calls from businesses but not charities.

In staying his ruling, the appeals court suggested that conclusion was too broad.

"The Supreme Court has held that there is undoubtedly a substantial governmental interest in the prevention of abusive and coercive sales practices," the court said. "The prevention of intrusion upon privacy in the home is another paradigmatic substantial governmental interest."

The court also noted that Congress had found some telemarketing calls "have subjected consumers to substantial fraud, deception and abuse."

Officials with the American Teleservices Association in Indianapolis declined immediate comment.

The free registry went into effect last week after the government scrambled to overhaul the system following the court challenges. The FTC gave up most control of the list to the FCC. President Bush also signed a hastily passed law giving the FTC authority to operate the registry.

It was Nottingham's ruling that had been closely watched because of the constitutional issues.

Attorneys for telemarketers argued the FTC has not shown charitable calls are less annoying than commercial calls. They also said the First Amendment rights of telemarketers need to be protected.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031007/D7U1JPQ00.html

[jimpeel]

Just to whip this poor pony one last time, found this and thought it quite compelling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/levy200310020827.asp

[Mike Irwin]

Oh yeah, that's compelling as hell...

An article telling me that essentially I have to hide in my own home to avoid uninvited, uninitiated, unrequested, and unwelcome intrusions on MY time and MY life.

In fact, that article is about as compelling as laws telling me that I'm obligated to scurry out the back door of my home like a scared little rabbit in case someone breaks in....

No, JimPeel, it's NOT a compelling article on the subject.

It's a bull:cuss: article on the subject.

[jimpeel]

I found it so. Perhaps a re-read would help.

Nope, there it is: A phone customer does not own the lines coming into his home, so he may not restrict their use.and ...Your ownership of the television doesn't give you the right to prevent advertisers from broadcasting into your living room. Similarly, your ownership of a phone doesn't mean you can suppress usage of incoming lines.The solution ...But if the lines are owned by a common carrier, then government dictates the rules. Indeed, government has placed limits on the ability of common carriers to police their own networks, which must be available to serve all comers. Longer term, the solution is to get rid of the common carrier model and substitute private carriers so the market, rather than government, regulates access.a comparison ...... the Post Office scheme allows recipients to choose which particular senders to exclude. Neither Congress nor a government agency categorizes senders in a manner that requires blanket exclusion or blanket access. and a bit of logic ...Justice William Brennan got it right: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Looks compelling to me.

[Jeff White]

jimpeel,
There are some problems with your arguements:

A phone customer does not own the lines coming into his home, so he may not restrict their use.

I lease the lines coming into my house. This gives me the right to control the use of property I pay to lease. If I lease a car, does that mean that anyone can jump in and drive it because I don't own it? How about if I rent a home. Does that eliminate my right to keep anyone out, because it's not my property?

I pay for the phone line and I own the equipment in my home. I will agree that a no Call list should be just that and politicians and charities and survey companies should also be included.

The author is trying to use the no call list controversy as a call to deregulate the telecommunications industry. That's quite a stretch.

then there is this gem of wisdom:

Yes, the Supreme Court has declared that commercial speech is not entitled to the same First Amendment protection as noncommercial speech. So the Denver decision may well be overturned. That may strike some consumers as the right outcome, but the Court's distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech has never been coherent. When someone advertises a political book, promotes a paid political event, or markets merchandise in support of a political cause, the commercial and political implications are inextricably entwined. It's time for an overhaul of the Supreme Court's commercial-speech doctrine. Our Constitution protects Klan speech, flag burning, even "gangsta" rap. Surely the right of companies to provide information about their products is no less worth protecting.

So a salesman's right to bother me at dinner to try to sell me aluminum siding to cover the brick veneer on my house is just as important to our freedom as the right of the New York Times to make up stories and call them news, or our right to pass out handbills to alert the gun owning public about an onerous new law? Hardly.....The First Amendment was written specifically to protect political speech, to prevent establishment of a state religion and ensure that everyone was free to worship or not worship as they choose to.

Any company that would like to use my telephone to attempt to sell me something is welcome to, as soon as they send me a check to subsidize my telephone service. $5.00 per month, per company should about cover it. Of course there is no guarantee I won't follow Robert Levy's advice and screen the calls with Privacy Manager and caller ID. It's just the same as hitting the remote when the commercial comes on the TV, right Mr. Levy?

Jeff

[BryanP]

Your ownership of the television doesn't give you the right to prevent advertisers from broadcasting into your living room. Similarly, your ownership of a phone doesn't mean you can suppress usage of incoming lines.

False argument. I am paying for telephone service. Television is a broadcast medium that is specifically paid for by the advertising model. And yes, you could argue that I pay for cable, but I am paying for a service from the cable company itself. The individual channels derive their income from an advertising model.

Oh, and I have to throw this in, my favorite cartoon to date about telemarketing. For those of you who are not familiar with Sluggy Freelance, the rabbit is named "Bun Bun." He has an established dislike for telemarketers (you should have seen what he did with the piranha tank a few years back ...) Go rabbit. :evil:

http://www.sluggy.org/daily.php?date=031014

[CZ52GUY]

While I align philosphically with Libertarians probably as often as Republicans, their "fundamentalist" view of certain topics constrains a "full embrace".

A television is an entertainment device.

A phone is a communications device.

The television, if I turn it on at all, comes with an agreement that I am subject to the programming available, and the advertising that may go with it, or I can simply opt out (which I've pretty much done).

The phone on the other hand (as has been pointed out) is more of a lease arrangement for a communication device. That device resides in my home. I control it's use for a healthy fee.

The Cato article does not rebutt the Constitutional flaw from Nottingham's decision that stated effectively that unwanted commercial speech by others is protected within my home.

It is not, it never will be.

Cato got it wrong this time, as did Nottingham.

CZ52'

[Oleg Volk]

Telemarketing is basically a slightly less nasty version of continuously prank-calling an emergency line like 911...IMO.

[Bruce H]

Telemarketing is just noknock warrants for the masses. Just as irritating too. Be just as hard to get control of also.