Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  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
    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.





  4. #4
    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.



  5. #5
    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]



  6. #6
    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.





  7. #7
    127.0.0.1
    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]
    > 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.


    i'm glad to see a few people understand the DNC problem.
    do you want to put the no soliciting sign on your door, or do you want the
    government to do it for you?





  8. #8
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

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



    "RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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


    check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
    http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html

    florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
    http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619

    please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
    DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that a
    much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?

    unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.





  9. #9
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

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



    "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In alt.cellular.verizon William Bray <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > This all a bunch of hog wash. Most of the outfits I worked for claimed
    > > to be charitable organizations.

    >
    > The Denver judge doesn't like the law because it has too many exemptions
    > and says that it should not have any, not even for charities or politicos.
    >


    i agree.. it's all or nothing.





  10. #10
    RedDragon\(-=Revenge=-\)
    Guest

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


    Start here.
    www.cexx.org





  11. #11
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

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



    "RedDragon(-=Revenge=-)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Start here.
    > www.cexx.org


    nice link, thanks...





  12. #12
    Michael Yermian
    Guest

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


    The federal one is $11K.

    --
    Michael Y.


    "127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected].news.atl.earthlink.net>:
    >
    > "RJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > 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

    >
    > check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
    > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
    >
    > florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
    > http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
    >
    > please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
    > DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that a
    > much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
    >
    > unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  13. #13
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

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



    "Michael Yermian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > The federal one is $11K.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Y.
    >


    http://na.iiaa.org/FAQ%20re%20Telema...g%20080703.pdf

    page 9

    federal penalty is $11k per offense
    state penalty $500 (unspecified amount?)
    (civil) private suit is $500

    but it is still unclear. state attorney general can also file.
    gets kinda complicated. feds/state/civil suits all at once.





  14. #14
    Peter Pan
    Guest

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



    "127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    > check your state laws for state run DNC policies...
    > http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...statelist.html
    >
    > florida has a state DNC, why can't each state have their own?
    >

    http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/ind...19.HTM&Title=->2001->Ch0501->Section%20619
    >
    > please read penalties for violating florida DNC. if you are on that state
    > DNC and a telemarker calls you, you can be awarded up to $10k. isn't that

    a
    > much better plan than a no reward federal DNC?
    >
    > unfortunately, not everyone knows about state DNC.
    >
    >


    The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
    that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
    (which many do), it does NOT apply!

    PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
    there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.





  15. #15
    127.0.0.1
    Guest

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



    "Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > The a*hole telemarketers sure do. There are only about 20 states out of 50
    > that even have a DNC, and if a telemarketer calls from outside the state
    > (which many do), it does NOT apply!


    this list is not up to date, i've seen a few federal websites that say over
    half the states have their own DNC.
    the most accurate way is to check each state's website for DNC laws.

    and you can sue an out of state business if they solicit in your state. dell
    is an example (wouldn't you sue them if you never received your purchases?)

    > PS, the example you gave was for Florida, I see you didn't mention that
    > there is a $10 fee for getting your phone number added to it.


    my apology, I've posted that $10 fee on other threads that I'm flamed on
    (florida has no state tax)
    federal DNC isn't free either and we do pay federal taxes.





  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast