 |
| |
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
1 hour, 47 minutes ago
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress moved quickly on Thursday to reinstate a popular "do-not-call" telemarketing list that millions had signed up for before it was blocked by a U.S court two days ago.
The House of Representatives voted 412-8 to give the Federal Trade Commission authority to run the national registry of phone numbers that telemarketers would be prohibited to call. The Senate was expected to vote on a nearly identical measure later in the afternoon.
The flurry of activity on Capitol Hill underlined the program's tremendous popularity among voters, who have placed 50 million home and mobile phone numbers on the list since it was launched this summer.
"This Congress has often been called a slow and cumbersome beast, but I think you can see how fast this Congress is prepared to move when 50 million Americans are angry," said bill sponsor Rep. Billy Tauzin in debate on the House floor.
After an Oklahoma City judge ruled late Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), not the FTC, had authority to oversee the list, at least 11 lawmakers introduced bills that would give the FTC the needed authority.
Many lawmakers questioned Judge Lee West's reasoning and insisted they had given the FTC the necessary authority when they funded the program in February.
"We should probably call the bill 'This Time We Really Mean It Act' to cure any myopia in the judicial branch," Tauzin said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the Senate would vote on an identical bill by the end of the day.
The White House welcomed House passage of the legislation and made clear President Bush (news - web sites) stood ready to sign it. "He strongly supports what they're doing," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
The FTC said on Thursday the court had denied its request to allow the program to go forward while it appeals the decision.
The Direct Marketing Association, which filed the lawsuit in February, instructed its members to avoid calling those who had signed up for the list.
In debate on the House floor, lawmakers condemned both Judge West and the telemarketers who pester Americans at home with unwanted sales calls.
"Unwanted telemarketing calls are less popular than a skunk at a church picnic, and they are more persistent and obnoxious than athlete's foot," said Rep. John Dingell (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill.
Michigan Republican Rep. Fred Upton (news, bio, voting record) brandished West's phone number, while Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ed Markey suggested Congress would spare him the wrath of outraged consumers by overriding his decision.
Others pointed out the judge had temporarily united a Congress that is frequently split along ideological lines.
"I want to thank the judge for making us all love each other," New York Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel (news, bio, voting record) said.
At least 38 states have do-not-call lists of their own, which will not be affected by the court's ruling.
The FTC's program would impose fines of up to $11,000 each time a telemarketer called a number on the list. It would not apply to political and charitable calls.
 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:31
|
|
As I understand a Federal Judge claimed the department which created the list wasn't authorized by Congress to do so. Knowing the do not call list was universally popular the politicians immediately jumped on this and passed a bill authorizing the necessary departments to create a do not call list. The house passed it today and the senate has it on its agenda for tomorrow.
BTW was it the Department of Commerce that created the Do Not Call list?
Last edited by Oerdin on 26-09-2003 at 04:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
And the main reason why is because Congress has decided to charge people more for sending a letter to reduce the cost of business/bulk mail. If Congress treated us all the same (God forbid), these outfits couldn't afford to send us all this crappola everyday... |
That's not entirely correct. Bulk mail is a MONEY MAKER for the post office that actually serves to subsidize sending regular mail. I believe the rate is set because its where the post office projects they can generate the most revenue with regards to bulk mail. I don't find most junk mail that big a deal since I can simply quickly throw it away and the commercial interests are careful about sending it since it costs them a noticable amount of money to do so. Admitedly raising the prices on bulk mail would cut down on the junk mail sent, although there are some peices of bulk mail that people actually want to get.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
A little long... but I edited out some of the worthless crap.
This is one of the industry newsletters that I got today. The writer is normally a a shill for the Direct Marketing Association... so I find what he has to say really interesting...
-------------------------------------------
Friday, September 26, 2003
When Do YOU Want to Receive Telemarketer's Calls?
By Mark Naples
Like many of you, I've been following the controversy and court cases surrounding the US Federal Trade Commission's creation of a Do Not call List. This list, for those of you not attuned to the issue, enabled consumers to provide phone numbers that became "off limits" to telemarketers, with a $11,000 fine assessed for each offense. I should think that many of you are like me and that you signed up your home phone number immediately.
I should think that at least half of you reading this are in the direct response business.
As far as I'm concerned, the DMA is not only losing this issue, they may be on their way to losing whatever credibility they have left in Washington and among other marketing organizations.
DMA lawyers had won a stay of sorts earlier this week, since a judge in Oklahoma essentially put a halt to the execution of the Do Not Call list by saying essentially, that Congress had not given full authority to the FTC to enact such a regulation. Congress, being Congress, looked at the 50 MILLION phone numbers that were submitted to the list and said, rather categorically (Senate vote: 95-0, House vote: 412-8) that whether or not they HAD granted this power to the FTC, they grant it as of now. President Bush, whose signature matters not with this kind of majority, says he'll sign this Bill. (Good idea)
Here comes the part that this column is about. The DMA has not gotten behind the Do Not Call Registry.
What? You cry? Why SHOULD they? After all, isn't the registry going to cost the industry millions or even billions of dollars?
Well, folks, it may. It probably won't. But, it may. If your trade association does come up with some way to work with the Feds, and make such a registry work for consumers, then perhaps telemarketing won't get run over by this train, which happens to have left the station a long time ago. Do Not Call will only cost the telemarketing industry perhaps 1/20th of its annual revenue, by some impartial models.
But, here's why it probably won't, and why the entire direct marketing industry had better wake up and deal with this now. 50 MILLION Americans have their phone numbers on this list. These are not people who respond well to telemarketing. These are people who do not buy on the phone, or online. These are people who, by and large, would rather not be answering telemarketers' calls at all. If telemarketers ever were sincere about filtering their lists, these are the people whose names would be deleted anyway.
These people have opted-out, capiche?
105 million people voted in the Presidential election in 2000. Almost half that many figured out how to get their phone numbers in the FTC's Do Not Call list, even though many are elderly or have no Web access, and others have never submitted their data to any such database. People called friends to discuss it and asked kids to do it online for them. The FTC's Web servers were swamped, remember?
Should the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and not the FTC administer this, as some industry lawyers have claimed in their stalling tactics? Since money is made across state lines in the transaction, nope. It's the domain of the FTC. But, who cares? 50 MILLION people!
The DMA's response?
"We're concerned about consumers who think we want to make calls when they don't want to receive them," said Bob Wientzen, chief executive of the association. The industry group has said for some time that it wants to "work with government" to find an acceptable solution. But, judicial stalling tactics make it seem like the opposite is true.
Note to Mr. Wientzen: Either find a creative way to get behind some version of this, or be run over by this train, which carries 50 Million Americans who don't want to receive telemarketers' calls at all. That means, not during dinner, early in the morning, or any other time. These are not your members' target consumers. The Do Not Call List, if the DMA gets behind it or some version of it, could become the Federal Government's way of scrubbing your databases at taxpayers' expense. If you let the FTC manage this alone, it will be a giant headache for your industry. If you fail to actually WORK with the FTC instead of making it harder on them and positioning your industry as obstructionist, this will become much more difficult for all involved, especially your members.
----------------------------------
A surprising and excellent point of view from somebody who usually sides with the DMA and shill's their point of view. What he says is just so completely true. Since this goes to many of the important people in the DMA... maybe it will have some impact. The government is actually doing them a big favor... one that will save them time and money... they just don't seem to realize it yet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snotty
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
The flurry of activity on Capitol Hill underlined the program's tremendous popularity among voters, who have placed 50 million home and mobile phone numbers on the list since it was launched this summer.
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's not 50 million Americans. It's 50 million phone numbers. |
Does anyone know the actual figure for people this list covers, rather than just their numbers?
How high is mobile ownership in the states? considering that most people who block their home number are going to do it for their mobile as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
Some figures I just dug up. The US is far behind many other countries. Penetration in the US is just approaching 40%
Country
Subscriber (million)
Population rate
Finland
3,3
64,4%
Norway
2,8
63,4%
Sweden
4,9
55,2%
Denmark
2,8
52,4%
Italy
29,4
51,0%
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-09-2003 03:11
.
|