Do Not Call Registry Gets Glowing Reviews 276
coondoggie writes to tell us that in a recent report to Congress by the FTC, the National Do Not Call Registry got glowing reviews. They seem to be well established now with $21 million in fees in the bank, 22 successful court cases, and an almost 70% approval rating. "In 2007, a total of 6,242 entities paid fees totaling $21,602,003 for access to the National Registry. According to the FTC, telemarketers and sellers can access registered telephone numbers and pay the appropriate fee for that access, if any, through an Internet website dedicated to that purpose. The only information about consumers that companies receive from the National Registry is the registered telephone number. Since the Registry's inception, a total of 18,197 unique entities have paid fees for access to the National Registry. The total amount of fees paid by all entities since the inception of the National Registry through the end of 2007 is $80,629,778, the report stated."
Still too many loopholes (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, things have improved a great deal. My telemarketing calls have probably dropped by about 75% since this law was introduced. But I still get WAY more than I should be getting (which should be none). Until they close these loopholes, a landline is still a bit of a pain in the ass.
Fortunately, both groups use computer autodialers which let me spot them very easily. If there is even the slightest pause after I say "Hello?" I know it's a telemarker (a normal person will respond immediately, an autodialer takes a little time to connect you with a live salesman). I've also found it helpful to always give my voicemail number at work as my "phone number" with any new company I do business with (telemarketers never leave messages).
I have a cousin who actually LOVES to get telemarketing calls, though. He has found all kinds of creative ways to screw with them. He will try to keep them on the line as long as possible, encouraging them with lots of questions and feigned interest, only to tell them "No" at the end (time is money for telemarketers). He will ask them "Hey could you hang on just a minute?" then put the phone down and go watch TV. My personal favorite is when he responds to them with "EXCUSE ME, but I'm trying to masturbate here!"
Re:Not the end state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
My gf worked for a telemarketer for 1 week before she quit out of frustration. They used a computer system that had thousands of scripted responses for any reason imaginable a person would use to reject an offer. The phone numbers were automatically dialed by the computer and when a number popped up that was on the DNC list you got a warning message on your screen. Of course everyone was told to ignore the message and make the call anyways. We later reported them to the police. Tele marketers can choose to ignore the DNC list.
And I can choose to ignore stop signs, drug laws, et cetera. It doesn't make the law/list BS (which it may or may not be). The question is how effective is the policing of it--there are no cops waiting by your phone, so the onus is on you to report any violations.
Re:Don't get me wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have freedom of speech, not freedom to bother me. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".
Your freedom of speech does not extend to standing on the sidewalk outside my residence with a bullhorn. My right to ignore you supercedes your right to speak.
Re:Just a 70% approval rating? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they just think it needs to be better.
Re:Don't get me wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the seemed to have worked out a good balance. A lot of people are crabbing about the exceptions but those exceptions are for the protection of political and religious speech.
Commercial speech has less protections which is why cigarette companies can not advertise on TV and such.
Re:Don't get me wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
What, your first amendment right to call me in the middle of dinner to try to sell me a carpet cleaning service? Or to have a robo-dialer which will leave me answering a phone with nobody on the other end?
Individuals have first amendment rights. I've never bought the argument that companies have the same thing. I fail to see why we should protect the ability of companies to make unsolicited calls to people who don't want them. Are you saying spam should be protected speech too?
Besides, if you are going to do this kind of call, wouldn't it be better to get a list of the people who you know aren't interested rather than hearing me tell you to "fuck off" for the 3rd time this week?
I realize the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone is just doing a job -- but, I don't give a crap and I don't owe him any politeness. If you show up on my doorstep and aggressively won't leave or keep coming back when I tell you to, I'm gonna knock your ass down. If you call me, I'm going tell you exactly once nicely -- there after, you're not getting nice. (And, believe me, I've been called 20 times in two weeks by the same organization. There's no point in politely explaining after the 1st time.)
Cheers
I call it a win (albeit imperfect) (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Cost onus is on the callers (i.e. I don't have to pay some fee to put my name on the list--the telemarketers have to pay to get it or risk breaking the law).
2. I have no idea what the costs associated with running the lists are, but 21M for 1 year in fees sounds pretty good. A government program that doesn't waste a lot of money--hallelujah.
3. It has the desired effect. 91% with decreased unwanted calls.
Another reason to disapprove... (Score:3, Insightful)
Another reason people might disapprove is that the Do Not Call list preempted state laws that let the person called sue for a nontrivial chunk of change. The federal law only allows the fed to fine and sue. Then the fed gets the money and the callee only gets more aggravation.
Re:Two problems still (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it isn't. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to use my property to conduct your speech. The freedom of pollsters to "speak" to me ends at the demarc, where I start paying for the wires.
It's ineffective simply because the politicians get money from fundraisers and hire pollsters to push-poll their constituents. They wrote their own exemption into the law.
They exemption they DO NOT HAVE, is if you tell them explicitely not to call you. THAT makes the next call illegal.
Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry?? (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a data warehousing company. Any accounts that we have that still use direct telemarketing campaigns are required to buy the list. It's not that expensive, and it is very nice, honestly. These people took the time to say they won't be buying things from telemarketers, so we know we don't want to market towards these people.
Re:Not the end state (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the end state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't get me wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
911 failing to answer is an undesirable situation, not an infringement of rights.
Shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the end state (Score:3, Insightful)
The expense is an excuse for why it's banned on cellphones and not to landlines.
The real reason was cell phone users weren't willing to tolerate unsolicited calls to their cell phones. Yes, it's because people were having to pay for the calls, but if land line users would stand up like that to unsolicited calls of any sort they too would be banned. Or at least the bulk of the calls that were placed purposefully would be.
Re:The wrong solution (Score:3, Insightful)
You've only identified the problem all the more clearly. Government restriction. Get rid of the restriction on the number of telephone companies in an area, and maybe you'll get some choice. Your argument, as it stands now, is basically "the government doesn't give me any choice, so it shouldn't give anyone else a choice either." In other words, you are accepting the status quo in defense of the status quo.
"PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number, not exactly an exploitable source of information when the whole system is number based and most telemarketers are behind auto-dialers."
That was not my primary concern, though. My main concern is with the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion. Besides, you can't say that it's impossible for me get your personal information just from your phone number. Even better, I have an entire list of confirmed, active phone numbers for which to gather personal information! Sure, alone it's just a number, but with a little social engineering it can turn into a whole lot more.
Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The list is a wonderfull thing, not only did it cut my calls to nothing, it also helps people who are too nice/gulible stop getting fleaced. From a business perspective, well its nice to know that you arent taking advantage of your customers but you probably make less profit. But hey being ethical is a good thing in its own right.
Re:Don't get me wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but that is no different than people protesting or putting political signs up or stopping you to ask you to sign a petition.
Putting up political signs on public property is littering and thus illegal. (There are sometimes also specific statutes against it.)
Putting up your political signs on my property is probably vandalism, maybe littering, and is illegal either way.
You can only put up your political signs on your property. Also, you can only protest if you're not causing a nuisance. You have the right to peaceably assemble. Not to make an ass of yourself.
You were saying?
Re:Shameful (Score:2, Insightful)
Horseshit (Score:3, Insightful)