| Comment Number: | OL-100976 |
| Received: | 11/27/2004 4:48:21 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Elizabeth Hasch |
| State: | KS |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
It is already difficult to do business with any company and not be flooded with junk mail from them or other businesses that our personal information has been sold to. But at least we can just toss junk mail in the garbage. It is not nearly as invasive as a phone call. We signed up on the Do Not Call registry because we do not wish to receive unsolicited calls from any company, including those we do business with. Your proposed loophole would defeat the purpose of the Do Not Call registry. Even with the Do Not Call registry we still have to put up with unsolicited calls from organizations using professional fund raisers and political calls. Instead of a loop hole that would allow more calls, I would love to see the Do Not Call limitations extended to these groups as well. The most annoying type of unsolicited calls are recordings. Few things are more rude than answering the phone and discovering you aren't even speaking with a real person. We have helped elderly friends sign up for the Do Not Call registry. Receiving pre-recorded marketing calls would confuse them and be stressful. Such calls would also cause stress to my husband. My husband works full time as a veterinarian despite being terminally ill and currently undergoing chemotherapy. When he comes home from work, he needs to be able to rest, both physically and mentally. Marketing calls are allowed into the early evening hours. My husband is often resting at that time. I'm sure there are many people with similar situations who have used the Do Not Call registry for protection from unwanted marketing calls. Whose welfare are you considering with this loophole for the Do Not Call registry? Certainly not ours, or others who have signed up for the registry.Your proposed loophole would be a betrayal of the 64 million people who have signed up on the Do Not Call registry.