Do-Not-Call List

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by raschild, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. raschild macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    Good ol' US of A
    #1
    A second judge has now blocked the Do Not Call List claiming it infringes on the telemarketer's rights of free speech (see story here: http://www.msnbc.com/news/971734.asp?0cv=CA01). This happened the same day that both the House and the Senate passed the legislation. About 50 million people are signed up for the list set to take effect 1 October. Is the judge overstepping his bounds, or is this list a good thing?

    I'd say that the telemarketers have all the right they want to speak freely, but I am under no obligation to listen. I fully support this list as it gives people freedom to choose whether they want to be solicited or not (except for a few who are exempt from the list-see http://www.donotcall.gov/ for more info).

    What say you?
     
  2. Macco macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    #2
    One of the arguments against the Do-Not-Call list is that it will put a lot of telemarketers out of work. That's really a ridiculous piece of reasoning if you think about it. Sure, our country should be doing all it can to promote job growth. But you wouldn't be against a federal crackdown on illegal drugs just because it might put some dealers out of business. The telemarketing industry is considered an annoyance by most people, and I think people should have a right to not be interrupted during the middle of dinner by complete strangers.
     
  3. KCK macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2003
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    #3
    You have the right to put up a no trespassing sing on your property to keep strangers off your land. I view the do not call list as a way of putting up a no trespassing sign on your phone line.

    When ever I figure out that a call is from a telemarketer I just hang up right away. I make it a point to never do business with a company that has bothered me with a telemarketng call.
     
  4. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #4
    Hmm. I wonder how this would affect our real estate business.

    Every day, my dad pulls down the list of people whose homes have expired listings on the multiple listing service. He calls them to offer our services (we specialize in selling homes that didn't sell the first time around). I wonder if this would make it illegal for us to call?

    Edit: regardless of the answer, we're not evil telemarketers. We call at most twenty people a day and rarely or never call during the dinner hour.
     
  5. raschild thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Location:
    Good ol' US of A
    #5
    Sounds like everybody that replied is basically in agreement that the list is a good thing. Playing the devil's advocate, what do we do about all of the people that would necessarily be put out of a job? This is no small industry. Just some more food for thought. Is our convenience worth thousands of people losing their means of income (again, I'm playing the devil's advocate)?
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    let 'em stuff envelopes.

    the do-not-call list has been a long time in the making. it shouldn't be catching anyone by surprise. all it means is that companies are going to have to channel their marketing strategies in other directions, like direct mail. there'll still be some jobs, anyway.

    you know what? i'd rather the gov't pay them to pick up garbage. so long as they're not calling my phone :)
     
  7. Inu macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    #7
    We already have a thing like that working in switzerland. You simply put a mark in a checkbox that you dont want to get telemarketer calls, and thats it.

    Doesnt work though. They still call sometimes, but i tell them politely to look at the little star next to my number that tells anyone i do not want to listen to him and hang up.

    Btw, what about spammers? its the same kind of business. If you would illegalize it, wouldnt loose people their jobs? Would anyone really mind? :)
     
  8. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #8
    In the UK also we have an organization set up my the direct marketing companies themselves which offers you the chance to go on a list to exempt you from receiving each of the following:

    email marketing
    telephone marketing
    snail-mail marketing
    fax marketing
    (i.e. 4 separate lists)

    I'm on them all and I've got to tell you they work! I haven't been phoned in the middle of a meal by a kitchen furniture company for three years now, and the volume of mail through my letter box has halved.

    Surprisingly, also very few junk emails (except for my old Hotmail account which I don't use any more for that very reason)

    The idea of making it a voluntary system makes some sense. The marketing companies themselves are saving money by not contacting those hostile to the concept, and are probably better placed to know how to police all the devious practices these companies employ! How (if) this works for offshore companies I don't know.

    As for the employment issue, this is not an argument. To be involved in anti-social behavior of any sort (which IMO this is) shouldn't be condoned. Any employment, no matter what, isn't better than no employment.
     
  9. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #9
    "Is the judge overstepping his bounds, or is this list a good thing?"

    At this stage, I'd say it's exploratory. He's calling for checking into First Amendment issues, which is legitimate. This particular judgement has little to do with "good thing".

    "Way back when", the phone company took the position that if you didn't want "stray" calls, don't have a phone. By signing up for a phone, you obligated yourself to having the bell. Those days, they required that the phone be hard-wired; no plug-in. And you couldn't put a switch on the ringer, as the telephone belonged to the phone company.

    That was then; this is now.

    I imagine that with Congress getting high behind on passing this new law, the legality of the list will wind up as most of us hope for. And, yeah, it will hit Daveman's business, I believe.

    As for commercial spammers, I'd like to have it the law that any commercial spammer must provide a true name and a street address with their message, and with penalties like the new California law.

    'Rat
     
  10. phrancpharmD macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Historic Norcross
    #10
    I love my answering machine
    I love my answering machine
    It keeps the people I (don't) know away from me
    -Bruce McColloch

    Seriously though, you would be amazed how few telemarketing calls you get when you just don't answer your phone and let your answering machine pick up instead. Sure your friends and family have to say "Hello, anybody there?" but it's a small price for them to pay.

    :)

    - please note I added the (don't) to the above lyrics; it's not really there in the song.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    I actually pay the phone company about $5 a month just to have them block calls that don't have a caller ID number available. It works quite well, I get very, very few TM calls these days.
     
  12. bobindashadows macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    #12
    I understand that many low-security prisons that have been incorporated actually employ the prisoners as telemarketers. Heaven forbid we keep them from earning their 10 cents a day! (Not that far from the truth)
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    I realize a lot of people do this, but we shouldn't have to pay a tax for the privilege of not having our privacy and peace of mind violated.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #14
    now we're getting to something that infuriates me.

    in chicago, ameritech is the main local service provider (for a while, it was the only one). after much perseverance, i finally got them to admit that THEY THEMSELVES provide the call lists. it's illegal for them to sell it, so they "give it away" to a subsidiary (which happens to be owned by ameritech), who turns around and sells the info. then ameritech wants to charge us to stop the practice.

    it's bull****.

    when you sign up for service, ameritech puts you on something called a Preferred Customer List. this is code for "sell his info to the telemarketers." they don't advise you of this, you have to explicitly say you don't want to be on the list.

    after i found out about it, i had them remove me from the list. telemarketing calls decreased by about 3/4.

    it's a ****ing scam and i hate it.
     
  15. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #15
    The first amendment does not give someone the right to harass you in your home.

    Which is often what telemarketing is.

    They're rude, will not hang up and cannot take no for an answer. Many people have been signed up for services they never agreed to by scamming telemarketers who wanted to increase their sales; the money is taken straight out of their CC account (because one of the companies that YOU PAY MONEY TO to do finances or other business with has decided to SELL YOUR LIFE to the highest bidder, including your credit history, address, phone number, SS#, credit card number and much more), and if the customer doesn't check that statement, they will steal as much money as they can.

    I'd rather have door-to-door sales again; at least then when you said no, they'd have to look you in the face and keep pestering you (and risk angering you within reach of them).

    And they didn't have your credit card in hand before they rang your bell.
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    One afterthought: if we ban or make difficult telemarketing, what do you think the chances are that it will be pushed underground and operate maliciously, like spam operators?
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    Well, IMO they already operate maliciously in many cases, but if you meant surreptitiously, then yes probably a lot of it will be driven underground. The model for this may be the spam faxers -- probably 99% of their traffic is a violation of federal law. Still, spam fax would increase by orders of magnitude if they weren't forced to operate in the shadows.
     
  18. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #18
    i think it's ludicrous that a judge should think this has anything to do with free speech. the telephone is totally irrelevant to the first amendment. sure, it can catch things you say, but the first amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to use the phone to talk to anyone you damn well please. i hate it when these rights get turned upside down and stop guaranteeing your freedom, but rather guaranteeing someone else's to annoy you.

    patriot act II, anyone?
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    Precisely what kinds of speech the First Amendment guarantees hasn't ever been entirely clear. I don't personally believe it protects a telemarketer's interests in intruding into people's homes against their wishes, but this is something the Supreme Court will eventually have to decide. I would guess that the direct marketing industry already has three sure votes on this court.
     
  20. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
    if the court allows this, i think it's time to have a constitutional amendment. an interpretation favoring business over people's privacy would reflect a very strong bias against the true american definition of freedom (whatever that is).

    these spam people are worthless weasels, by and large. i don't care if they're "just trying to make a buck;" you shouldn't have a constitutional right to make money by annoying people at dinner time. spammers should be dealt with like we do here. warning... warning... bye bye :)
     
  21. Rower_CPU Moderator emeritus

    Rower_CPU

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2001
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #21
    I'm sure many of you have heard this, but it bears repeating:

    Rather than just say "no" to a telemarketer, place them on hold. Put the phone down and walk away. If enough people do this it will seriously bog down their networks as they all sit and wait for people to take them off hold.

    They'll figure it out eventually, but I think it'll get their attention.
     
  22. shadowfax macrumors 603

    shadowfax

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #22
    that's not too bad; i haven't heard that one, i don't think, though i like Maddox's idea for snail mail spam--forwarding your spam mail to the companies that send it to you in their provided "business reply mail" envelopes that have prepaid postage.

    somehow though, i find the idea of publicizing the locations of these telemarketers' business so that citizens can return with their own freedom of speech by surrounding them and protesting vehemently, as well as perhaps some small amount of arson...
     
  23. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    if the first amendment protects phone marketers rights to be heard, i would like to exercise my right to not have to listen.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    That in fact would be your right to privacy, a right that at least three members of this Supreme Court don't believe we have.
     
  25. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #25
    My state has a do-not-call list. It's in effect and it works. I don't get junk calls anymore. Ever.

    See if your state has one. If it doesn't, ask your State Rep. if he or she can work on it. Tell them to model it after Pennsylvania's list.

    If you can't knock 'em out at the federal level, the state level will have to do.
     

Share This Page