Results 1 to 15 of 19
- 09-26-2003, 07:25 AM #1PDA ManGuest
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
- 09-26-2003, 07:36 AM #2Thomas T. VeldhouseGuest
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
- 09-26-2003, 07:40 AM #3JustinGuest
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.
- 09-26-2003, 08:10 AM #4Phill.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.
- 09-26-2003, 09:00 AM #5Scott JohnsonGuest
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]
- 09-26-2003, 09:12 AM #6JustinGuest
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.
- 09-27-2003, 09:36 AM #7127.0.0.1Guest
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?
- 09-27-2003, 09:51 AM #8127.0.0.1Guest
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.
- 09-27-2003, 09:53 AM #9127.0.0.1Guest
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.
- 09-27-2003, 10:01 AM #10RedDragon\(-=Revenge=-\)Guest
Re: Its So Sad Its Comical, 2nd Judge Has Blocked Congress " Do No Call" Vote
Start here.
www.cexx.org
- 09-27-2003, 12:11 PM #11127.0.0.1Guest
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...
- 09-27-2003, 03:20 PM #12Michael YermianGuest
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]>:
>
> "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]
- 09-27-2003, 03:50 PM #13127.0.0.1Guest
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.
- 09-27-2003, 05:37 PM #14Peter PanGuest
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.
- 09-27-2003, 06:23 PM #15127.0.0.1Guest
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
- Nokia
- Samsung
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.verizon
How to Network Unlock Your Samsung Galaxy S24 from Claro
in Samsung