Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    PDA Man
    Guest

    WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
    promised relief from telemarketers will happen.

    Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
    overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
    when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
    next week.

    "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
    Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."

    Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
    Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
    U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
    lacked the power to create and operate the registry.

    "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
    (search).

    The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
    Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
    intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.

    But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
    blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
    national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
    thousands of jobs.

    Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
    Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
    commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
    chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.

    The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
    is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
    will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
    win in court for the list to move forward.

    Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
    up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    1-888-382-1222.

    West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
    no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

    The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.

    While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
    second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
    do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
    easily.

    The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
    remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
    do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
    more than 24 hours.

    The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
    year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    numbers.

    Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
    "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
    on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.

    Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
    calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
    people were encouraged to call.

    Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.

    The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
    including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.

    The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
    the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
    association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
    Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
    calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
    companies.

    The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
    to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
    fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
    an automated phone or online system.

    Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
    of politicians.

    FULL STORY
    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html





    See More: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote




  2. #2
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    whether
    > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    >

    <snip>

    Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one of
    them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.

    Tom Veldhouse





  3. #3
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    whether
    > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    >

    <snip>

    Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one of
    them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.

    Tom Veldhouse





  4. #4
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > whether
    > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > >

    > <snip>
    >
    > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one

    of
    > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >



    If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
    less taxing.





  5. #5
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > whether
    > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > >

    > <snip>
    >
    > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one

    of
    > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
    >
    > Tom Veldhouse
    >



    If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
    less taxing.





  6. #6
    Phill.
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > > whether
    > > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > > >

    > > <snip>
    > >
    > > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one

    > of
    > > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    > > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    > > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    > > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
    > >
    > > Tom Veldhouse
    > >

    >
    >
    > If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
    > less taxing.


    And Gore would be President.



  7. #7
    Phill.
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > > whether
    > > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > > >

    > > <snip>
    > >
    > > Fortunately, some states have lists that are enforced .. Minnesota is one

    > of
    > > them. It has been VERY effective here. Don't you worry, those fools
    > > pushing the dollars into Judges pockets and bribing politicians (aka
    > > lobbying) will fail because the general public has even more persuasion at
    > > reelection time and it is a BIG issue with them ... the best lobby of all.
    > >
    > > Tom Veldhouse
    > >

    >
    >
    > If that were completely true, our government would be smaller and our taxes
    > less taxing.


    And Gore would be President.



  8. #8
    Scott Johnson
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    or more if you let them.
    I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    such
    a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    courts for years at taxpayer expense.


    "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
    > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    >
    > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
    > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
    > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
    > next week.
    >
    > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
    > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
    >
    > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
    > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
    > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
    > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
    >
    > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
    > (search).
    >
    > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
    > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
    > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
    >
    > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
    > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
    > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
    > thousands of jobs.
    >
    > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
    > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
    > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
    > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
    >
    > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
    > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
    > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
    > win in court for the list to move forward.
    >
    > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
    > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    > 1-888-382-1222.
    >
    > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
    > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
    >
    > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
    >
    > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
    > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
    > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
    > easily.
    >
    > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
    > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
    > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
    > more than 24 hours.
    >
    > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
    > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    > numbers.
    >
    > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
    > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
    > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
    >
    > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
    > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
    > people were encouraged to call.
    >
    > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
    >
    > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
    > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
    >
    > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
    > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
    > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
    > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
    > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
    > companies.
    >
    > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
    > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
    > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
    > an automated phone or online system.
    >
    > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
    > of politicians.
    >
    > FULL STORY
    > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  9. #9
    Scott Johnson
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    or more if you let them.
    I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    such
    a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    courts for years at taxpayer expense.


    "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering whether
    > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    >
    > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate an
    > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
    > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking effect
    > next week.
    >
    > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep.
    > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
    > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
    >
    > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
    > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday by
    > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
    > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
    >
    > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz
    > (search).
    >
    > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday. President
    > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls are
    > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
    >
    > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
    > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued the
    > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
    > thousands of jobs.
    >
    > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the First
    > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech, blocking
    > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC has
    > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
    >
    > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing calls,
    > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal issues
    > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must
    > win in court for the list to move forward.
    >
    > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue signing
    > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    > 1-888-382-1222.
    >
    > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency offered
    > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
    >
    > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
    >
    > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
    > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
    > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be solved as
    > easily.
    >
    > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded with
    > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
    > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in little
    > more than 24 hours.
    >
    > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
    > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    > numbers.
    >
    > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign up.
    > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up
    > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
    >
    > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded with
    > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
    > people were encouraged to call.
    >
    > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as well.
    >
    > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
    > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
    >
    > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies and
    > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers. The
    > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
    > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to block
    > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
    > companies.
    >
    > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months
    > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be
    > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to
    > an automated phone or online system.
    >
    > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf
    > of politicians.
    >
    > FULL STORY
    > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  10. #10
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    > or more if you let them.
    > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    > such
    > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
    >


    He Texas Highway patrol calls me once every three months to know if I want
    to buy a sticker for my car.





  11. #11
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote



    "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    > or more if you let them.
    > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    > such
    > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
    >


    He Texas Highway patrol calls me once every three months to know if I want
    to buy a sticker for my car.





  12. #12
    John
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting their
    right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is a
    significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
    spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
    heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
    constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this different
    treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.

    "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    > or more if you let them.
    > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    > such
    > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
    >
    >
    > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    whether
    > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > >
    > > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate

    an
    > > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
    > > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking

    effect
    > > next week.
    > >
    > > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for

    Rep.
    > > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce

    Committee.
    > > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
    > >
    > > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
    > > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    > > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday

    by
    > > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
    > > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
    > >
    > > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,

    R-Ariz
    > > (search).
    > >
    > > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.

    President
    > > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls

    are
    > > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
    > >
    > > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
    > > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued

    the
    > > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
    > > thousands of jobs.
    > >
    > > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the

    First
    > > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,

    blocking
    > > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC

    has
    > > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    > > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
    > >
    > > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing

    calls,
    > > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal

    issues
    > > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC

    must
    > > win in court for the list to move forward.
    > >
    > > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue

    signing
    > > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    > > 1-888-382-1222.
    > >
    > > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency

    offered
    > > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    > > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

    Denver.
    > >
    > > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
    > >
    > > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
    > > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
    > > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be

    solved as
    > > easily.
    > >
    > > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded

    with
    > > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
    > > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in

    little
    > > more than 24 hours.
    > >
    > > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
    > > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    > > numbers.
    > >
    > > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign

    up.
    > > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang

    up
    > > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
    > >
    > > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded

    with
    > > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
    > > people were encouraged to call.
    > >
    > > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as

    well.
    > >
    > > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
    > > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
    > >
    > > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies

    and
    > > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

    The
    > > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
    > > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to

    block
    > > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
    > > companies.
    > >
    > > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three

    months
    > > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people

    could be
    > > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints

    to
    > > an automated phone or online system.
    > >
    > > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on

    behalf
    > > of politicians.
    > >
    > > FULL STORY
    > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
    > >
    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]






  13. #13
    Scott Johnson
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    Right, and I guess that's why I feel like there should be no
    exceptions for any organization. It would seem that by putting
    in exceptions a 1st ammendment issue now exists. By saying
    to commercial organizations that "you can't" but to charitable
    organizations "you can" you make a distinction which, as I understand
    it, is the basis for a 1st ammendment issue. I'm
    still very unclear on how free speech extends to the privacy of my home.
    How is it anyone's right to essentially enter my home and begin
    excercising their right to free speech. Only then do I have a right to
    say "leave". But I don't have a right to say "no" up front? What about
    the concept of "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting". If the 1st
    ammendment issue is simply the result of introducing exceptions into the
    no-call
    rules then it seems that no-exceptions would be the answer. No calls
    means no calls - period - my home, my phone, my decision. Hollar at me
    all you want on public property but you can't come into my home
    uninvited - physically or via my phone. Really I don't get the
    difference between a door-to-door salesman and a telemarketer. If I put
    up a No Trespassing sign on my property and a salesman comes up to my
    door, don't I have legal recourse? Isn't he trespassing?
    (and I'm really asking here - I'm not an attorney - all my common sense
    says yes but I've learned over the years that that probably means the
    law says no).
    So, why can't I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my phone number. No
    exceptions - I don't care if you want to sell me something, ask for a
    donation or ask for my opinion - you can't just call my house or show up
    at my door.

    "John" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting their
    > right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is a
    > significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
    > spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
    > heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
    > constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this different
    > treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.
    >
    > "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    > > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    > > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to call
    > > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not a
    > > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    > > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    > > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    > > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    > > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do have
    > > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    > > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    > > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    > > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    > > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    > > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    > > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15 minutes
    > > or more if you let them.
    > > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    > > such
    > > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    > > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    > > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as I
    > > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    > > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    > > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal unrequested
    > > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    > > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    > > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
    > >
    > >
    > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > > <[email protected]>:
    > > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > whether
    > > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > > >
    > > > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to celebrate

    > an
    > > > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court ruling
    > > > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from taking

    > effect
    > > > next week.
    > > >
    > > > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman for

    > Rep.
    > > > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce

    > Committee.
    > > > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
    > > >
    > > > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that the
    > > > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    > > > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling Tuesday

    > by
    > > > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the FTC
    > > > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
    > > >
    > > > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,

    > R-Ariz
    > > > (search).
    > > >
    > > > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.

    > President
    > > > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing calls

    > are
    > > > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
    > > >
    > > > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in Denver
    > > > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who argued

    > the
    > > > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss of
    > > > thousands of jobs.
    > > >
    > > > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the

    > First
    > > > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,

    > blocking
    > > > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The FTC

    > has
    > > > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    > > > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
    > > >
    > > > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing

    > calls,
    > > > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether legal

    > issues
    > > > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the FTC

    > must
    > > > win in court for the list to move forward.
    > > >
    > > > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue

    > signing
    > > > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    > > > 1-888-382-1222.
    > > >
    > > > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency

    > offered
    > > > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    > > > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

    > Denver.
    > > >
    > > > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
    > > >
    > > > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans, the
    > > > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing the
    > > > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be

    > solved as
    > > > easily.
    > > >
    > > > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they responded

    > with
    > > > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but the
    > > > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in

    > little
    > > > more than 24 hours.
    > > >
    > > > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an election
    > > > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    > > > numbers.
    > > >
    > > > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to sign

    > up.
    > > > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang

    > up
    > > > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
    > > >
    > > > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded

    > with
    > > > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet and
    > > > people were encouraged to call.
    > > >
    > > > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as

    > well.
    > > >
    > > > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of telemarketers,
    > > > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
    > > >
    > > > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing companies

    > and
    > > > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call centers.

    > The
    > > > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the Federal
    > > > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to

    > block
    > > > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and telephone
    > > > companies.
    > > >
    > > > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three

    > months
    > > > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people

    > could be
    > > > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints

    > to
    > > > an automated phone or online system.
    > > >
    > > > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and on

    > behalf
    > > > of politicians.
    > > >
    > > > FULL STORY
    > > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  14. #14
    John
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every right
    to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
    soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff minus
    X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine. However, the
    *government*, and thus the FTC, doesn't have that right. The court is
    saying that if the government allows exceptions (i.e. distinctions), that is
    an impermissible *governmental* infringement on the First Amendment. Even
    though *you* proactively put yourself on the list, the government doesn't
    allow an option for complete blocking. So the government, in effect, is
    favoring charitable speech vs. commercial speech. I'm not a First Amendment
    scholar, but the opinion has a valid, if not strong, argument.

    So you're arguing for a no exceptions rule. That would alleviate the above
    problem, but it creates a new one. Charitable speech is still speech, so
    the government can't censor it without a significant reason (again, a First
    Amendment issue). In previous cases, charitable speech has been deemed more
    important to the public good than commercial speech. So, if you want to
    block charitable speech, you have to have a damn good reason, much better
    than for blocking commercial speech (heightened scrutiny vs. rational basis
    review). The FTC made the distinction because it believed that it didn't
    have a good enough reason to block charitable speech, but good enough for
    commercial speech. It thought that a no exceptions rule would get shot down
    because of this. So, in effect, by trying to avoid one constitutional
    issue, they created another. Ironic, isn't it?

    By the way, if you are interested in reading the 2nd opinion (which is the
    more important one), it's online at:
    http://www.co.uscourts.gov/opinions/ewn_030184.pdf





    "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Right, and I guess that's why I feel like there should be no
    > exceptions for any organization. It would seem that by putting
    > in exceptions a 1st ammendment issue now exists. By saying
    > to commercial organizations that "you can't" but to charitable
    > organizations "you can" you make a distinction which, as I understand
    > it, is the basis for a 1st ammendment issue. I'm
    > still very unclear on how free speech extends to the privacy of my home.
    > How is it anyone's right to essentially enter my home and begin
    > excercising their right to free speech. Only then do I have a right to
    > say "leave". But I don't have a right to say "no" up front? What about
    > the concept of "No Trespassing" or "No Soliciting". If the 1st
    > ammendment issue is simply the result of introducing exceptions into the
    > no-call
    > rules then it seems that no-exceptions would be the answer. No calls
    > means no calls - period - my home, my phone, my decision. Hollar at me
    > all you want on public property but you can't come into my home
    > uninvited - physically or via my phone. Really I don't get the
    > difference between a door-to-door salesman and a telemarketer. If I put
    > up a No Trespassing sign on my property and a salesman comes up to my
    > door, don't I have legal recourse? Isn't he trespassing?
    > (and I'm really asking here - I'm not an attorney - all my common sense
    > says yes but I've learned over the years that that probably means the
    > law says no).
    > So, why can't I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my phone number. No
    > exceptions - I don't care if you want to sell me something, ask for a
    > donation or ask for my opinion - you can't just call my house or show up
    > at my door.
    >
    > "John" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > <[email protected]>:
    > > The reason charitable organizations are exempted is because limiting

    their
    > > right of free speech is much more of a constitutional problem. There is

    a
    > > significant public interest in allowing them to make phone calls (i.e..
    > > spread info re their social goals). So, limits on their speech lead to
    > > heightened scrutiny from the courts. The FTC was likely trying to avoid
    > > constitutional issues by exempting them. Ironically, it was this

    different
    > > treatment from commercial calls that lead to a first amendment issue.
    > >
    > > "Scott Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > > Actually, I learned something from this second ruling that I did not
    > > > know. Charitable organizations and surveyers were not subject to the
    > > > list. I knew that organizations were still going to be allowed to

    call
    > > > their customers but I didn't know about the other exceptions. I'm not

    a
    > > > jerk and I contribute quite generously to charities. But, I do have a
    > > > beef with several charities that call me quite regularly - charities
    > > > that I do not contribute to. I have refused them before and they
    > > > continue to call. Interestingly, I don't recall receiving a call from
    > > > any of the charities that I do contribute to. I have to admit I do

    have
    > > > a problem allowing exceptions. Most charities that call are doing so
    > > > with telemarketing firms. They spend a significant portion of their
    > > > received donations on overhead - way more than they should, in my
    > > > opinion. And for the life of me I can't figure out why survey firms
    > > > would be exempt - OK, they don't want you to buy anything but they're
    > > > just as disruptive - moreso if you agree to speak with them. They
    > > > always call at dinner time and will keep you on the phone for 15

    minutes
    > > > or more if you let them.
    > > > I look at this list as "No Solicitors" sign on my phone. If I put up
    > > > such
    > > > a sign on my home or business, I expect it to apply to all solicitors,
    > > > not just commercial ones. I would like the exceptions removed. It
    > > > would not affect my charitable giving and I have to admit, as much as

    I
    > > > hate telemarketers, I find some reason in the 1st ammendment argument.
    > > > Federal regulations tend to wind up a mass of nonsense when exclusions
    > > > and exceptions get added in. You are either making illegal

    unrequested
    > > > phone solicitation or not. Keep it simple and absolute and maybe it's
    > > > got a change. Put in exclusions/exceptions, etc. and it'll be in the
    > > > courts for years at taxpayer expense.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "PDA Man" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    > > > <[email protected]>:
    > > > > WASHINGTON - A fight between Congress and the courts over a national
    > > > > "do-not-call" list is mired in legal limbo, with consumers wondering

    > > whether
    > > > > promised relief from telemarketers will happen.
    > > > >
    > > > > Supporters of the free government service had barely begun to

    celebrate
    > > an
    > > > > overwhelming vote Thursday in Congress to counter a federal court

    ruling
    > > > > when they learned that another judge had blocked the list from

    taking
    > > effect
    > > > > next week.
    > > > >
    > > > > "It puts a little damper on the party," said Ken Johnson, spokesman

    for
    > > Rep.
    > > > > Billy Tauzin, R-La. , chairman of the House Energy and Commerce

    > > Committee.
    > > > > "But we're still confident of prevailing in the end."
    > > > >
    > > > > Tauzin led an effort in the House to pass a bill making clear that

    the
    > > > > Federal Trade Commission (search) has the authority to enforce the
    > > > > do-not-call registry. The legislation was prompted by a ruling

    Tuesday
    > > by
    > > > > U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City that said the

    FTC
    > > > > lacked the power to create and operate the registry.
    > > > >
    > > > > "Clearly the court's decision was misguided," said Sen. John McCain,

    > > R-Ariz
    > > > > (search).
    > > > >
    > > > > The House voted 412-8 and the Senate 95-0 for the bill Thursday.

    > > President
    > > > > Bush said he looked forward to signing it. "Unwanted telemarketing

    calls
    > > are
    > > > > intrusive, annoying and all too common," he said in a statement.
    > > > >
    > > > > But late in the day, U.S. District Judge Edward W. Nottingham in

    Denver
    > > > > blocked the list, handing another victory to telemarketers who

    argued
    > > the
    > > > > national registry will devastate their industry and lead to the loss

    of
    > > > > thousands of jobs.
    > > > >
    > > > > Nottingham said the do-not-call list was unconstitutional under the

    > > First
    > > > > Amendment because it does not apply equally to all kinds of speech,

    > > blocking
    > > > > commercial telemarketing calls but not calls from charities. "The

    FTC
    > > has
    > > > > chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumer's decision by
    > > > > manipulating consumer choice," Nottingham wrote.
    > > > >
    > > > > The list, which would block an estimated 80 percent of telemarketing

    > > calls,
    > > > > is supposed to be effective Wednesday, but it's unclear whether

    legal
    > > issues
    > > > > will be settled by then. Even after Bush signs the legislation, the

    FTC
    > > must
    > > > > win in court for the list to move forward.
    > > > >
    > > > > Despite the uncertainty, the FTC is encouraging people to continue

    > > signing
    > > > > up for the list at the Web site www.donotcall.gov or by calling
    > > > > 1-888-382-1222.
    > > > >
    > > > > West rejected an FTC request to delay his order, saying the agency

    > > offered
    > > > > no additional evidence that would make him change his mind. The FTC
    > > > > immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in

    > > Denver.
    > > > >
    > > > > The commission had no immediate comment on Nottingham's ruling.
    > > > >
    > > > > While it was unclear how West's order would affect the FTC's plans,

    the
    > > > > second ruling more directly prohibits the government from enforcing

    the
    > > > > do-not-call list. The constitutional issues raised also may not be

    > > solved as
    > > > > easily.
    > > > >
    > > > > The first court ruling caught lawmakers off guard, but they

    responded
    > > with
    > > > > remarkable speed. Bills can take months or even years to pass, but

    the
    > > > > do-not-call legislation was drafted and approved in both chambers in

    > > little
    > > > > more than 24 hours.
    > > > >
    > > > > The rapid response underscored the popularity of the list in an

    election
    > > > > year. After fewer than four months, it already has nearly 51 million
    > > > > numbers.
    > > > >
    > > > > Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he was one of the first people to

    sign
    > > up.
    > > > > "This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can

    hang
    > > up
    > > > > on a telemarketer at dinnertime," he said.
    > > > >
    > > > > Since issuing the ruling, West's home and office have been bombarded

    > > with
    > > > > calls from angry consumers. His numbers were posted on the Internet

    and
    > > > > people were encouraged to call.
    > > > >
    > > > > Late Thursday, Nottingham's phone numbers began to surface online as

    > > well.
    > > > >
    > > > > The case decided by West was brought by a coalition of

    telemarketers,
    > > > > including the Direct Marketing Association, an industry group.
    > > > >
    > > > > The suit in Nottingham's court was filed by two telemarketing

    companies
    > > and
    > > > > the American Teleservices Association, which represents call

    centers.
    > > The
    > > > > association has another lawsuit pending in Denver against the

    Federal
    > > > > Communications Commission, which added its authority to the list to

    > > block
    > > > > calls from certain industries, including airlines, banks and

    telephone
    > > > > companies.
    > > > >
    > > > > The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three

    > > months
    > > > > to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people

    > > could be
    > > > > fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file

    complaints
    > > to
    > > > > an automated phone or online system.
    > > > >
    > > > > Exemptions to the list include calls from charities, pollsters and

    on
    > > behalf
    > > > > of politicians.
    > > > >
    > > > > FULL STORY
    > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,98388,00.html
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    > >
    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]






  15. #15
    RJ
    Guest

    Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote


    On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 17:47:24 -0400, "John" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >There's a distinction that I think you're missing. *You* have every right
    >to put up a "no calling" sign on your home phone, just like a "no
    >soliciting" sign. You can also put up a "no calling if you sell stuff minus
    >X exceptions" sign if you want. That's all fine.


    Please explain how to do that.

    ---
    Bob



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast