FTC Bans Prerecorded Telemarketing Drivel 381
coondoggie writes "In the ongoing battle to let us eat dinner in peace without being interrupted by amazingly annoying telemarketer blather, and in this case the even more infuriating recorded telemarketing drivel, the Federal Trade Commission today basically outlawed recorded telemarketing calls. Specifically, the FTC changed its venerable Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to prohibit, as of Sept. 2009, telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages, unless a consumer has agreed to accept such calls from a given caller/seller. Between now and 2009, telemarketers must provide an obvious, easy and quick way for consumers to opt-out of any call, the FTC said. Such an opt-out mechanism needs to be in place by December 1, 2008."
prerecorded (Score:5, Interesting)
"telemarketing calls that deliver prerecorded messages"
what if they use text to speech software? it's not prerecorded.
am i looking for money lol
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
One MAJOR item missing from do not call lists (Score:4, Interesting)
Currently, you're not able to opt out of receiving political or charitable calls. There are companies out there masquerading as charities and calling folks. I'm on their list and have been told several times that I cannot and will not be removed from their lists, because they don't have to.
Once the FTC fixes this, then I'll be impressed.
Is anybody willing to enforce the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes we've had laws against pre-recorded robotic marketing in Canada for decades. The problem is that neither the government nor the police are willing to enforce the law. When I get robots calling me up I make a complaint to the phone company and the phone company says they can't do anything about it because it is a police issue. When I phone the police up they tell me that they won't do anything about it because it is the phone company's responsibility to stop the illegal practice.
Re:Opt-Out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, however obviously doing the reverse, and having it opt-in, would exclude telemarketing almost entirely, (which would be a good thing, but not from their point of view, and their associates) and probably lead to things like bundling telemarketing plans with your phone bill, and if you opt-out there, your rates go up... so opt-out is probably a better option, although bundling may happen anyways as most people are becoming used to it now arbitrarily, hey why not tack it on as manditory?
[ ] I would like to install Google Toolbar with my new long distance plan. (-5$ From monthly bill)
[ ] I do not wish to participate in the telemarketing option. (+15$ to your montly bill)
Re:One MAJOR item missing from do not call lists (Score:1, Interesting)
Bullshit - once you tell them not to call you, they can't call you - regardless of whether it's a so-called Charitable or Political call.
Find out who they are - go to the Police, tell them you're being harassed by wire. Swear out a complaint. Call the politicians - get them on the phone, tell them flat out that you absolutely positively WILL NOT vote for anyone who robocalls people who are on the Do Not Call list. Go to their fundraising events, and ask them face-to-face why they refuse to honor the Do Not Call list - make them squirm in front of as many people as you possibly can by asking that question publicly and loudly. Don't let them get away until they answer it - ask if you can have their home phone number to call THEM to discuss the campaign...
File complaints with the FTC (donotcall.gov) and the FCC's online system. Regardless of whether these people are allegedly exempted now, the more complaints the FCC and FTC get, the more apt they are to refine the law to revoke the alleged exemptions.
And I say 'alleged exemptions' because the SCOTUS has ruled in many cases that you do not have to listen to any message put forth by anyone. You can't be forced to read something, receive something, or listen to it because to do so would be tantamount to legalizing a form of trespass. If you post a sign saying "No trespassing, no soliciting, post no bills", etc. then that's it - they have to honor it. That's the way it is in meatspace - and I've used it against all manner of junk mailers. There's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply to the telephone as well - once I put my number on a list - which I do so of my own volition - then damn it, I've posted the NO TRESPASSING sign and you violate it at your own peril.
Privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Telephone communications are considered private, right? That is, unlike email, a phone conversation can reasonably be expected to be between only me and the party on the other end.
How can one then presume that a private activity such telephone communication should be treated as a broadcast medium? Political free speech is an exemption? Am I to let every politician come into my bedroom for a little pillow talk because of "free speech"?
The phone is a direct line into the heart of my private home. I don't want anyone in my home who I didn't invite.
You might say calling me is no different from coming up and knocking on my door. OK then, come up and knock on my door. Too expensive you say? Calling is more efficient you say? Well I believe the term was "free speech", not "cheap speech".
Oh, and when you do come knocking, don't forget to read the sign that says "No Solicitors". You know, the sign that sets the rules on my private property where I have certain rights also.
Tell you what, here's a good way to do it. Since I can't put a sign on my phone, why not make a rule that says if you want to call me you have to have come to my door and get me to sign a piece of paper that says I agree to take your calls. If that's too much trouble, then I probably didn't want to hear from you anyway.
Re:Exemptions? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed it is. But free speech - political or otherwise - can still be harassment, which remains illegal. I'm hardly an expert on tort law (hell, I don't know if harassment is even falls into the category), but I see no reason you couldn't sue if not press criminal charges if it's serious enough.
Re:Exemptions? (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. But when did a pre-recorded message become "speech"?
If McCain wants to call me to tell me bad things about Obama, let him, but then I want to hear him in person. His right to talk to me stops when he prevents himself from hearing me hanging up on him.
I also wish there was a way to temporarily block a phone for all calls except emergencies from numbers registered as such. Few things are as horrible as sitting waiting for a call from a hospital, and all you get are telemarketing calls.
Re:In the US they do (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't act on an individual complaint, but they compile them and if a company gets a number of them, the FTC goes after them.
That's pretty much what I was (finally) told (after calling back and forth between Bell Canada and the police) by the police. This means that I will continue to get automated robotic calls from the same companies (it has been happening for a few years already) until enough people decide to complain about it.
It's not a criminal issue, it is a civil.regulatory issue. So the police aren't involved.
According to what I was told by Bell Canada, it is a police issue. I agree however that the police should not have to get involved. I received no help or advice from either institution. I remember one time complaining to the CRTC (the Canadian equivalent to the American FCC) on another matter and they referred me to another department which referred me to another department. Eventually I gave up on that issue as I have given up on the robotic phone call issue (which I have complained about more than once; if at first you don't succeed, try try again).
I think these companies probably know the law enforcement issues (civil or otherwise) better than me and try to keep their call volume under the radar.
Yeah I know the issues; "it's not my aisle" and I should stop pestering law enforcement to enforce the law and the phone company can't control their own phone network.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A final solution for these people (Score:3, Interesting)
ps. Can't remember if I used a vbscript - probably, I use it for most everything on windows. But if the fax util accepts command line args, you might be able to avoid the vbscript. And I am sure there is a way to do it in Linux... someone else chime in with that info.