| Comment Number: | OL-100613 |
| Received: | 11/27/2004 12:05:16 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Haffenden |
| State: | AL |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
I oppose vehemently allowing the proposed amendment allowing companies to call using pre-recorded messages if they already have an established relationship. I supported te DNC list due to the plague of unsolicited calls from both new companies and companies which already had my contact information due to purchases from them or associated companies. Like most people I constantly buy things, in man y instances being forced to give contact information simply to make a purchase. The company's only reason for requiring this information is for future marketing, which I object to. If I want something, I will initiate contact. This new proposal almost completely nullifies the aim of the DNC list, which was overqwhelmingly supported by consumers - the people of America, for whom the FTC is supposed to work. The FTC is not supposed to be a mouthpiece and lackey of the telemarketing industry. My home is my private space, and no-one has any right whatsoever to enter it in any way without my permission. Telemarketing calls are the equivalent of a salesman having the right to enter my home and sit down, and not until then can I tell him to leave. Before DNC became operative I subscribed to numerous company's own DNC lists. Almost without exception these opt-out lists were ineffective, only since the DNC list have I gained relief from th continuous invasion of my privacy. On one alternative line I have not entered yet on the DNC I continually get calls from the companies from which I have credit cards - a business relationship - which I do not want. I know this will escalate significantly onto both my home phone lines should this cahgne come about. As far as the other change - to a 30 day rather than a 1 day ratio of call abandonment, this is also opposed. Currently the .3% ratio is a joke; at least half the calls I receive on the earlier-mentioned line are abandoned. Clearly the FTC is not doing its job policing this rule, and any change sought by the telemarketing industry obviously aims at increasing the number of permissible abandoned calls. Once again. The American public has spoken loud and clear that it does not want unsolicited telemarketing calls, and the courts have upheld that the companies have no free-speech or other rights to invade the privacy of our homes with such calls. I am at a loss as to why the FTC seeks to change the status quo against the people it represents and for private companies.