Concurring Statement of Commissioner Orson Swindle
Although I generally support the views of the Commission reflected in its testimony, I do not think that the testimony accurately reflects the magnitude of the irritation to consumers from unwanted telephone calls. The testimony correctly recognizes that "some consumers object to receiving telemarketing calls because they view such calls as an intrusion on their privacy and a burden on their time." See Prepared Statement of the FTC on "Proposed Legislation: The Telemarketing Victims Protection Act (H.R. 3180) and The Know Your Caller Act (H.R. 3100)," Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Commerce, United States House of Representatives (June 13, 2000), at 8.
The testimony, however, is likely to understate the actual extent of the irritation because it does not fully account for the effects of the apparently significant number of calls by entities over which the Commission's jurisdiction is entirely or partially limited, such as political fund raisers, charities, banks, telephone companies, etc. See id. at 5, n. 11. I think that it is important to underscore for the Congress that even bills that address unwanted calls by entities over which the Commission has jurisdiction would not remedy a significant amount of the irritation from unwanted telephone calls.