Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
"...the court said that the FTC has authority to curb abusive telemarketing practices under existing law but that any national do-not-call list must be handled by the Federal Communications Commission."
That's just too big of a goof for me to believe is possible. Guess government lawyers at government pay equal not quite close enough for government work.
what about those organizations that do not belong to the DMA? how do/can they benefit from the DMA's no call list?
and then there's that cry about infringing on the DMA's and telemarketer's "freedom of speech"... all i can say is "talk to the hand! your right to freedom of speech stops at my phone and my privacy."
Who do I call to opt out of the first admendment :)
Yea, so the telemarketer gets free access of my phone to spread his message.
And the spammer gets free use of my e-mail program to spread his message.
So I guess I get to borrow the mike at my local radio station now.
Or plaster bumper stickers on my neighbors car.
I don't get it. Wouldn't it make sense that the people who don't want the calls wouldn't buy anything anyway? You'd think this would be good for the telemarketing industry - they can focus on those people who actually want to buy useless junk over the phone from total strangers.
1. It would violate the first amendment (freedom of speech) to withhold phone numbers / restrict calling to unwithheld numbers.
Rejoin: In the first place, this is a non-sequitor claim; it engages in a fallacy of equivocation; "freedom of speech" is not "disclosure of X resource." It would be the same thing as trying to argue that the government is violating our freedom of speech by withholding classified materials from the public. "Freedom of speech" simply doesn't guarentee any type of right to disclosure, it only guarentees the right to free speech.
Secondly, telephone service is a paid service, and a telephone number is part of this service; thus it should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other article of commerce.
2. It would be very bad for telemarketing (and other) businesses if the list were withheld.
Rejoin: This claim, taken as fact, only goes to show that such businesses are not legitimate.
Further, the relative state of some business (or industry) does not negate legislation regarding private property or ownership. X car maker might do better if they knew the way Y car maker builds engines, but that would not justify stealing Y's engine specs, nor would it guarentee X any right to disclosure of the specs. Y must be the one to decide if they will disclose the information (and how it may be used if disclosed), irregardless of the state of affairs at X.
In the US, freedom of speech has nothing to do with disclosure. It deals solely with our government not being allowed to pass any law that retricts free speech. These guys can talk all they want all day long into their end of the phone, but IMO the first amendment doesn't cover them ringing my phone or anyone else's to listen.
Every once in a while I will mess with a telemarketer just because I can. My state is getting ready to pass a dont not call list in a month I think and I will be signing up on it when it hits the street.
From what you ladies and gents have posted I agree with and it seems like there is no one that wants to be called by telemarketers. Well I am going back to work now.
Well if this model works, maybe they can make a "do not spam" list. Good luck on the lawsuits (and unemployment aid applications! :) ) on that one!