Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Government The Courts News

Telemarketers Sue Over "Do Not Call" List 1004

Posted by michael from the tooth-and-nail dept.
Joey Patterson writes "CNN reports that 'Telemarketers expanded their legal challenge to the government's do-not-call list, suing a second federal agency over the call-blocking service for consumers that the industry says will devastate business and cost as many as two million jobs.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telemarketers Sue Over "Do Not Call" List More

Telemarketers Sue Over "Do Not Call" List

Comments Filter:

  • repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:43AM (#6560632)
    The list works. What a shame

    • Re:repeat after me (Score:5, Funny)

      by LooseChanj ( 17865 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560672) Homepage
      Except for the fact it doesn't. Just about the only person *not* exempted from calling people on the list is Homer and his auto-dialer.

  • In other words... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Joey Patterson ( 547891 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6560644)
    will devastate business and cost as many as two million jobs Telephonus Marketroidae are getting closer to the Endangered Species List.

    • Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:52AM (#6560770)
      The sad part about that two million jobs thing is that it's the entire legal basis of the suit. This is one in a string of lawsuits that are straying further from what's legal. Instead companies or class action groups just whine that they think something isn't fair. What's worse is that sometimes the courts go for it. If we keep going in this direction, there won't be laws or a constitution any longer. There will just be a judge who listens to two parties whine, until he proclaims the loudest one the winner.

      I would like to see some legal basis behind this challenge. What rights does it infringe? Where does it protect these rights in the constitution? Remember that stuff? That's what court cases used to be about.

  • Cost two million jobs... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pjack76 ( 682382 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6560646)
    ...of two million people who could be doing something USEFUL for society instead.

    Was there a constitutional right to profit that I missed?

    • Re:Cost two million jobs... (Score:5, Funny)

      by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <aaaaa&SPAM,yahoo,com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:55AM (#6560816) Journal
      the constutional right to profit is right there in the bill of rights with the right to privacy...

    • Re:Cost two million jobs... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TamMan2000 ( 578899 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:56AM (#6560829) Journal
      I agree, completely...

      When I read this thing I was thinking that these 2 million people make a living by taking time from other people, and time is money... so basically they "earn" their incomes by taking a small amount of money from everyone. If they lost their jobs and went on welfare it would be exactly the same, and I would be happier too...

    • Re:Cost two million jobs... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot&suppafly,net> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:58AM (#6560879)
      It's not really two million jobs anyway.. the same industry that does outbound telemarketing also does inbound telemarketing, and they count all of them employees when they figure up how many jobs it is. Realistically, most of the people they are counting do inbound service and wouldn't be effected anyway.

    • Re:Cost two million jobs... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Charlton Heston ( 588481 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:00PM (#6560900) Homepage
      You're right on. It's the same as the broken windows fallacy. If you went around breaking windows, you'd employ a lot of people, making windows, fixing windows, sweeping up broken glass. But, would we be any further ahead? Of course not. These telemarketers are a boil on the ass of society. They are leeching, not contributing.

  • Hypocrites... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gibble ( 514795 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6560649) Homepage
    I'm sure alot of people who work for telemarketers have their names on the list just so they don't get calls.

    • I was a telemarketer once -- very briefly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:06PM (#6561028) Journal

      Before everyone adds me to their Foes list, I want to say that I didn't last long: I quit. I was desperate for a summer job as a college student and thought that working indoors making a good wage was better than the crap jobs my buddies were getting pitching tar or whatever the hell they were doing in the heat. Funny thing is that I was selling premium television channels and I, personally, thought (still do) that TV was largely a waste. It took me a few weeks to develop my ability to sell something that I didn't believe in but pretty soon I was starting the heavy-sell over the phone. I was a hypocrite -- I personally thought what we were selling was crap.

      Finally, one day I made a call and a very elderly woman answered the phone. I started into my sales pitch when she finally sobbed "Please, please, just leave me alone. My husband has died and I don't know how I'm going to pay my bills." And by god if I didn't have to bite my lip to stop myself from replying "You need some entertainment to distract you from your problems. Can I sign you up for the comedy channel?" Man, I was so programmed to try to turn a bad situation into a sale that it was just automatic! Fortunately, I still had some decency left and told her that I wished her best of luck and hung up. I quit the very next day. I still remember the look on the boss' face when I told him why I was quitting. I don't think he had ever had someone quit for moral reasons before. He was stunned that someone would voluntarily quit a high-paying, cushy job solely because of moral qualms. Because I had left before my shift was up, my ride wasn't there to pick me up. I walked all the way home in the rain. But I was happy. I had done the right thing.

      Whenever I hear about the sob-stories of telemarketers, I simply remember back to those awful, awful people who I worked with those few weeks. Screw 'em.

      GMD

      • Almost as bad... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda@NosPAM.etoyoc.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:24PM (#6562107) Homepage Journal
        I was on the Solar Race team in college. One year we had a massive matching grant, so rather than give us the funding for the parts we need, we had to fund raise for it.

        Did I mention Drexel's mascot is "the Shaft?"

        One night I did cold calling of Alumni. I called 100 names on the list, I had 1 donation. Most of the alumni I called were downright hostile. Many were unemployed. A good chunk were bitter that they hadn't even paid off their loans and they were already hit up for donations. (Ten years later, but who's counting?)

        I felt so dirty that I swore I'd never do it again.

        That said, I did help out our local PBS station during a call drive. At least there, people were calling US, with credit card in hand, after having already recieved the "product" so to speak.

        The first rule of marketing is to have a product that will sell itself. Ideally you are only introducing the buyer to the seller.

  • ah the old "we lose our industry" excuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inteller ( 599544 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6560650)
    one could argue that they never had a viable industry in the first place. I mean sure they were born during the gee-whiz days of telephone technology, but yesterdays novelties are today's nuisances.

  • Better Now... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:45AM (#6560653) Homepage Journal
    ...then later, then. Seriously, it should have been tackled long ago. What I'd like the government to do is say "OK, we'll compensate for those being laid off, but the list is staying." THEN we'll see the true side of the telemarketters.

    FYI - if you work in email spam, better start looking for a job now while you have a chance...

  • Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by palutke ( 58340 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560658)
    Another industry with a doomed business model resorting to litigation to address its (short-term) problems.

    If I were a telemarketer, I'd be overjoyed at the prospect of a national do-not-call list. It should be seen as a list of people who aren't likely to buy anything from me, thus reducing the time I waste calling people who probably won't buy. The feds even pay to maintain it!

    Also . . .

    The suit's argument that jobs will be lost is worthless. If they were motivated by providing jobs, I wouldn't get so many pre-recorded solicitations. I'm sure the industry would eliminate almost all their employees if they thought it would bring them more profit.

    • Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcgroarty ( 633843 ) <brian.mcgroarty@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:52AM (#6560776) Homepage
      If I were a telemarketer, I'd be overjoyed at the prospect of a national do-not-call list.

      I don't think you would be. The majority of telemarketing purchases are made by people too submissive or timid to say "no" to a caller. These people are probably signing up in droves, as it's a nice, non-confrontational way of dealing with their weakness.

      • Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Jim Hall ( 2985 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:19PM (#6561233) Homepage
        I've developed an interesting habit when I get "pseudo-telemarketer" calls (in MN, certain services are exempted from the state DNC list.) I first heard a similar story on NPR, and it has worked well for me. Here's the call I had most recently:

        telemarketer: "Hi, my name is Sara, and I represent ___ mortgage company."

        me: "I don't believe your name is Sara."

        Sara: "What? Er.. hmm... well.. Why don't you believe my name is Sara?"

        me: "Well, okay. I guess I didn't mean it that way. I'll believe your name is 'Sara'. But I don't believe you're a real person. I think you're a computer program."

        Sara: "Huh? What? Why would you think I'm a computer program?"

        me: "Because I'm on the do-not-call list, so I can't believe a person would actually call me. You'd have to be a computer program."

        Sara: (laughs .. has a place to get back on the script) "The do-not-call doesn't apply to us. So I'm not a computer program."

        me: "That's what a computer program would probably say."

        Sara: "Okay, well I guess I won't waste your time tonight." (hangs up)

  • They finally have to find a more dignified job.

  • Won't work (Score:5, Funny)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560664)
    Isn't this exactly like the candle manufacturers suing the electric utilities, claiming electricity will cause massive job loss? On the other hand, what are all those losers whose only skill is having a big mouth and being able to follow a script going to do for a living now?

  • OK, let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ckd ( 72611 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560665) Homepage

    They're stating that not only has the FTC been distributing their intellectual property over P2P networks, but that it was also illegally incorporated into Linux.

    (What? This is a different lawsuit? I thought Slashdot only covered the RIAA and SCO!)

  • I cry. (Score:5, Funny)

    by nsanders ( 208050 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560673) Homepage
    *sheds a tear for the pain and suffering of telemarketers*

  • Well, sure! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilSporkMan ( 648878 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560676)
    If the RIAA can get their continued existance legislated, it's only fair the telemarketing field gets the same treatment...

  • Did I miss something? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kajoob ( 62237 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:46AM (#6560678)
    Since when is a job a right? I'm glad I have a job while so many of my friends are laid off right now, but I don't think my job is a God given right that can't be taken away. I think this goes to more of a privacy issue, but will courts curtail privacy to save an industry money?

  • Exemptions? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ominous Coward ( 106252 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:47AM (#6560680)
    Exemptions included...calls on behalf of politicians.

    So, even if I put up the telephone equivalent of a "Do not trespass" sign, the craziest of all businessmen are still allowed to call me?

  • Boo Hoo! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mr.nicholas ( 219881 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:47AM (#6560687)
    Cry me a river.

    If they (the Telemarketers) hadn't been so pushy uptil now, then the List wouldn't be necessary.

    But they were, and so it is.

  • 2 Million? WHat about our 3.3? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zapp ( 201236 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#6560704)
    So 2 million high school&college kids/temp workers with no invested education for their job are out of work. They can go work anywhere else that doesn't require training.

    Now how about the IT industry planning to fire 8% of it's US work force and move 3.3 million jobs to India and other Asian countries?

    We need to sue/pass legislature/whatever to secure our jobs, damnit!

  • Half of all customers lost??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arslan ibn Da'ud ( 636514 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#6560705) Homepage

    The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half,


    I'm confused. This means that half the people that buy products from telemarketers will sign up and therefore prevent themselves from buying new products?

    Someone's being really stupid here. Is it the people that buy products & prevent themselves from buying more? Is it the telemarketers making this up? Or is it just me?

    • Re:Half of all customers lost??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jim Hall ( 2985 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:08PM (#6561059) Homepage

      "The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half,"

      Someone's being really stupid here. Is it the people that buy products & prevent themselves from buying more? Is it the telemarketers making this up? Or is it just me?

      I think there's a misunderstanding. My cousin works for a telemarketing company, so I think I am a bit familiar with this.

      The banks and companies that use telemarketing services probably won't feel much of a pinch. They can market their stuff other ways. But the telemarketers often are not the companies selling the product. They are just marketing the product over the telephone using cold-calling techniques.

      These telemarketing companies exist to market stuff over the telephone. In the end, they don't really care if they sell anything (well, I'm sure they get a bonus for doing that...) Take away their ability to make cold calls to people, and there's not much reason to use a telemarketing service.

      In the end, a bunch of these telemarketing companies will go broke, and we'll just have fewer telemarketing companies out there. We'll still have them, though. Ultimately the idea that you can use the "do not call list" to determine who is likely to listen to a telemarketer will win out, but there will be fewer telemarketing companies to use it.

      And I hate telemarketers, BTW. Just wanted to make that clear.

      -jh

    • Re:Half of all customers lost??? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dr_LHA ( 30754 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:15PM (#6561164) Homepage
      I'm confused. This means that half the people that buy products from telemarketers will sign up and therefore prevent themselves from buying new products?

      That's exactly what'll happen. I've often heard from people that the do not call list will help telemarketers, as it will cut out people who never buy stuff from telemarketers. This is true, but the do not call list will also remove from the list telemarketers bread and butter: People who can't say no.

      There are a lot of people out there, I know a few, who just can't say no to telemarketers, get drawn in and buy stuff they know they don't want. These people know they have a problem, but still get caught out everytime the telemarketer calls. So going on the do not call list is the easy way out for them.

      Its the loss of these people that will telemarketers hurt telemarketers the worst.

  • New Jobs... (Score:5, Funny)

    by brianosaurus ( 48471 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#6560706) Homepage
    Maybe those 2 million people can get jobs selling magazines door-to-door.

    Oh wait. People hate that, too.

  • Hypocritical polticians... (Score:5, Funny)

    by focitrixilous P ( 690813 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#6560720) Journal
    Exemptions from the list include calls from charities and pollsters and calls on behalf of politicians.
    But calls from people telling me, Vote for Dayton/Coleman/Ventura/ whoever else is running are the worst kind. And don't get me started on charity calls, It's bad when they try to sell something, it's worse when the ask me to give them something for nothing. Toughen the law even more, I say. Make those annoying "oops wrong number" calls a federal offense. I don't want my phone to ring for anyone I don't already know. In fact, add my family to the list. The only ones I want to allow to call me are single women.

  • Idiocy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NeoSkandranon ( 515696 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:49AM (#6560722)
    You'd really think they'd notice the overwhelming response to the DNC registry and think "hey wait, maybe people really dont want to hear from us"...no such luck

  • Ooh (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sir Haxalot ( 693401 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:50AM (#6560733)
    '...cost as many as two million jobs.'
    Another group of people who went to the 'RIAA School of Maths'

  • What are they complaining about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gwernol ( 167574 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:50AM (#6560744)
    It beats me why the telemarketers are complaining. Currently about 28 million numbers have been registered on the national Do Not Call list, of around 313 million phone numbers in the US - that's less than 10%.

    Until 100% of numbers are registered I would have thought the telemarketers would have loved this. A tool that lets them to avoid wasting time calling people who don't want their services. This should make their operation much more efficient - in other words profitable.

    If they really believe they offer a valuable service, then clearly 100% of numbers won't be registered and they can continue to operate a profitable business serving those who do want their calls. Those who don't want to be called aren't. Win-win.

  • devaste jobs WHERE? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:51AM (#6560761)
    how many of those 2 million jobs that they claim will be MIA are located in the US?

  • I think Bush said it best (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:52AM (#6560775) Homepage

    You are either a consumer, or you are with the terrorists.

    Well, paraphrasing slightly, but I think you get the picture. If you can't be pressured into buying things that you don't want and don't need, then what's going to happen to all the people making those things, and applying that pressure? They'll have to get, you know, actual jobs.

    I suggest they start making buggy whips, as most of us need them about as much as the current products and services that need to pimp themselves with unsolicited calls.

  • On other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:52AM (#6560778)
    "Hell has expanded its ongoing legal challenge to religion and is suing yet another church over the concept of salvation, which Hell claims is devastating its business and will cost millions minimum-wage demons their jobs."

    It is as easy as that. Build a business on annoying people and then, when the annoyed people react, cry "But won't anyone think of the children (of our employees)?". The point is they shouldn't exist in the first place (the employees, not their children). It should not be everybody else's problem if you have a business model based upon a service no one wants (because if everybody wanted it we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?).

  • *The sound...* (Score:4, Funny)

    by jellisky ( 211018 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:52AM (#6560781) Journal
    *... of the world's smallest violin plays for the ATA.*

    Anyone else feel like starting up a telemarketing scam for telemarketers?

    "Hello, sir. Are you pissed since people no longer want to hear your sales pitch during their dinners? Would you like to hear about a technology which beats that nasty 'do not call' list? With our new technology, we are able to allow you to get around those laws and continue letting you peddle your crappy interest rate credit cards and stupid health insurance policies without the federal government finding out about it all! Are you interested, sir?"

    "What? It sounds like you're eating right now. Well, just think about how surprised your potential clients will be when they have the same thing happen to them. If I can just get your name, address, telephone number, credit card and social security numbers, we can send our informational package to you for the low price of $159.99!"

    -Jellisky

  • 2 Million Jobs my A** (Score:5, Interesting)

    by noahbagels ( 177540 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:55AM (#6560809)
    I can't believe how much the media and the courts let slip by. The CNN article should have been titled Telemarketers Attempt to Defraud Courts with fake job loss numbers and scare tactics.

    I don't have a clue how many people the Tele-hacks employ, but I sure know that they never get any business from me. By using this list, I am saving them time - increasing their profits!

    2 Million Jobs! You have to be kidding me!

    Why can't the media see thru lies like this one, and the RIAA, and simply report that companies are lying in order to survive.

  • Two million jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AlphaHelix ( 117420 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:56AM (#6560831) Homepage
    A loss of two million jobs...of which a large number are convicts, currently serving prison sentences, who get paid below minimum wage, because it's a good source of cheap labor with American accents, and it's their only opportunity for work. See, e.g., http://www.stopjunkcalls.com/convict.htm

  • Why complain? (Score:5, Funny)

    by loconet ( 415875 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @11:57AM (#6560844) Homepage
    Why even complain about the do not call list if those people listed on the do not call list basically are saying that they don't want to buy stuff from the telemarketers in the first place!

    That's like me getting a list of girls who would never go out with me. I'd love to have that list , it would save me time. Then again that list might be bigger than the do not call list, but that is beside the point.

    • Re:Why complain? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:26PM (#6561325)
      That's like me getting a list of girls who would never go out with me. I'd love to have that list , it would save me time.

      You have it now... Its called a Phone Book.

  • Think about who they're sueing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ipsuid ( 568665 ) <ipsuid@yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:05PM (#6561002) Journal

    You know, technically, the Federal government is for the people, by the people.

    So if telemarketers are sueing the Federal government, then they are sueing both the people who buy their products, and those that do not wish even to consider them. In effect, we are looking at companies sueing consumers to force them to hear free speech. Fortunately, freedom of speech grants the right to say something; not the right to force others to listen.

  • you know i would like to sell crack on my corner, i hear it's quite lucrative

    however, there is the small matter of the quality of life effect on my neighborhood, and my conscience about pushing an evil drug on people

    where is the telemarketer's concern over the quality of life of the people they harass over the phone? and where is their conscience about wasting people's time?

    who cares if it is 20 million jobs that are lost? telemarketing is an industry whose best place in the world is crumbling in the historical dustbin of defunct business models

  • Good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rknop ( 240417 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:12PM (#6561120) Homepage

    If there are jobs that we don't want done, then they should be lost!

    -Rob

  • Devastating to Business? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaffeineFreak ( 650066 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:14PM (#6561141)
    We've had a "Do Not Call List", called the "telephone preference list", in the UK for over 3 years now. It works a treat. I haven't had a telemarketing call for over a year and if someone does call you just tell them you are on the list and they leave you alone sharpish.

    Has it been devastating to companies in the UK? I don't think so. Maybe just to the shady ones that can only sell stuff over the phone because no advertisers will deal with them. I don't know about you but I think this is a good thing.

  • We, the people, have voted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Migraineman ( 632203 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:14PM (#6561145)
    Consider this to be a "popular vote," as opposed to one that requires representation. I have cast my vote, and it says "go away."

    It's kind of like having a speed limit on the highway. Yes, it restricts your ability to go fast, whenever you want. And yes, it places a restriction on how fast you can deliver material goods - which can be translated directly into "lost potential money" because it takes longer to deliver your wares.

    Safety requirements "cost jobs" for manufacturers of toasters. Sound level restrictions on cars "cost jobs" for manufacturers of glass-pack mufflers. Telemarketing is an industry that is subject to federal/state/local regulations, just like all the rest.

    So cry me a river. Deal with it.

  • Insert another quarter and try again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:17PM (#6561191) Journal
    "This truly is a case of regulatory overkill," said Tim Searcy, ATA executive director.
    "This [telemarketing] truly is a case of pushy sales overkill" said mobileskimo, Annoyed phone owner.

    The telemarketing industry estimates the do-not-call list could cut its business in half, costing it up to $50 billion in sales each year.
    Go make money providing society with something usefull.

    Implementing the list could also eliminate up to two million jobs, the ATA said.
    Stop getting paid for being a schmuck and go do something usefull.

    Quality Service Management
    Don't get me started on this one.

    And we wonder why our economy sucks when people wake up and smell the garbage they've been tossing around. Well, duh, if we're not producing anything and just making shit up to sell to each other, how do you expect anything of real value to be added to our world?

  • Clearly What We Really Need (Score:5, Funny)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:17PM (#6561197)
    is a Do-Not-Sue list!

  • Phone SPAM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @12:44PM (#6561573) Journal
    Whiners. Just like spammers, this is a case of people determined to make a medium not intended for advertising into one. Where does it stop? If they cannot call you, are they going to stand in front of my house and shout?

    This is laughable. Like travel/insurance/real estate agents and media distribution, this industry sprang up because of a particular circumstance of the business environment. Now that its changing, all these business are crying foul. Not so. They are slowly being replaced with online/digital mediums for searcing and sorting, micropayments and validation services.

    IMO, I hope these services die a painful death and the people involved with them go looking for work elsewhere. Economic disaster, true, but I think it'll be good for our population to be forced into newer concepts rather than propping up the old ones. A certain percentage may even train to be part of the digital industry's workforce. Sadly, some may become spammers (if not already).

    We're content overloaded and most of it is junk food. There simply isn't enough quality out there to warrant getting it stuffed in our faces every way possible. Let's have a phone/Voip be for private conversations, not substance-free radio blather.

    mug

  • applying logic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mboedick ( 543717 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:14PM (#6561963)

    They claim that they will lose money by not calling people who have indicated that they do not wish to be called?

    So they are really saying that people who signed up do not know what is good for them, and they really would like to buy what the telemarketers are selling? What an insult. The overwhelming response to the do-not-call list makes it difficult for these people to continue to pretend that they are not leeches.

  • Telemarketers destroyed by cruise missile attack! (Score:4, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @01:18PM (#6562014) Journal
    "We felt a lesson had to be taught," said newly appointed White House spokesdroid Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf after a volley of 753 cruise missiles were launched against the central assets of the nation's telemarketers. "Those phone calling, ass sucking bastards may feel safe hiding behind their lawyers, but they have been taught the shame that they shall now feel. We expect them to commit suicide at any moment."

    Early reports indicate that every cruise missile hit its intended targets except for one that leveled a Stuckey's in deepest, darkest New Jersey.

    "It was something else," said Garden State resident Bibby O'Leary. "There were nutty cheese balls everywhere. May the gracious Lord grant me my wish to never look upon such a sight again."

    "We gave the stinking pig-dogs a chance with the National Do Not Fucking Bother Me Resolution," said al-Sahaf. "We gave them every chance, but their black little souls were full of evil, and they had to be taught a lesson.

    "Gurgle! Argh!" shouted American Teleservices Association executive director Tim Searcy from his hospital bed where he was being treated for extensive limb loss. "Millions of grandmothers will die for lack of employment, and rats will devour the children of the land! Telemarketing is the only thing keeping the cloven hooved man-goat at bay in his underworld!"

    "There is ample legal precedent for governmental interest in protecting residential privacy," said FCC spokesbabe Bubbles McConnifer. "If those cock-gobbling leeches at the ATA don't like it, we can add them to the list of known terrorist organizations, and tip off the MPAA that the ATA is involved in heavy file sharing. Let's see how those weasels like that."

    Related link:

    Amateur photo of ATA headquarters. [virginia.edu]

  • The TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991) (47 USC 227 and subsequent FCC regulations of CFR 64.1200) have outlawed several practices and create certain requirements for others.

    Two things completely outlawed:
    1) Junk faxes - unsolicited commercial faxes may NOT be sent without WRITTEN authorization of the fax machine/line owner. Period. There is NO EBR (established business relationship) that would exempt that. If you are sent an advertisement and did not specifically give your (express) permission, then it is illegal. Period. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by the BS of 'removal' numbers that are on the faxes. It is merely an attempt to legitimize the industry as much as spammers try to suggest remove address make them ethical.

    2) Prerecorded commercial solicitations to your home may NOt be initiated without the EXPRESS permission of the owner. An exemption (unlike junk faxes) would be an EBR. Calls made for survey, political speech, or non commercial are exempt.

    If you receive either of the above offenses, then you are immediately owed $500 per VIOLATION by the person initiating the call and on who's behalf the call is made.

    That law provides a private right of action. Meaning you are specifically given the authority to sue them in court. While you cannot sue someone that litters on the highway, Congress provided this right. this pretty much makes you a private attorney general of your domain in regards to telemarketing.

    Live calls are regulated. They must identify themselves by the caller's name, entity placing the call, and an address or phone number by which they may be contacted. This MUST be provided without your even asking. The company MUST have a DNC (do not call) policy in place before making such calls. They MUST provide you with a written copy of that DNC policy upon request. NEVER, ever allow the telemarketer say they will take your name off 'the list'. Specifically DEMAND that they ADD your name to their company's Do-Not-Call list (emphasis added).

    The telemarketing is claiming the loss of millions of jobs. Yet they have not specified in what country. Do many of you not realize how many outbound call centers are in countries like India? The law by not affect that out-of-country company directly in terms of jurisdiction, but it does put liability on companies on who's behalf the call is placed. The only way a company can get by completely is if they are based and operate outside the country and have no business presence in any area under the jurisdiction of the US.

    I have gone to court several times against telemarketers. If people knew their rights and enforced them by bringing suit in court as Congress intended, then a national list would not be necessary. the companies would simply not be able to operate.

Slashdot Top Deals

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Close