| Comment Number: | OL-101285 |
| Received: | 11/27/2004 6:05:33 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | David Garland |
| State: | MN |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
This is to speak against changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule to allow prerecorded telemarketing spam to be sent to "consumers with whom the seller on whose behalf the calls are made has an established business relationship. "[PARA] There is no good reason to make this change. If the problem is that the FTC and FCC rules differ, it would be preferable to make the FCC rules more restrictive rather than gutting the FTC rules.[PARA] While perhaps there are situations where such calls are reasonable, the vagueness of the term "established business relationship" is a loophole through which telemarketers will easily squeeze. It is not reasonable to interpret such a relationship to permit calls because I have been so injudicious as to have once purchased a product from the company, nor that the caller is somehow organizationally related to another company with which I have done business. It is not reasonable to interpret the clause to permit sales calls for a product unrelated to the existing business relationship (e.g. selling insurance to victims whose only relationship is to have a mortgage). In fact, such a provision would only be acceptable if the telemarketer secures written permission from me in advance of the call.[PARA] Further, such a change might pre-empt the Minnesota State law requiring that recorded sales calls be introduced by a live operator. This requirement helps to ensure that vital phone service is not monopolized in a time of emergency by a robot telemarketer, and provides an opportunity to demand that the caller place the callee on a "do not call" list.[PARA] The national Do Not Call list has been a boon to the public, in spite of its numerous large loopholes. We don't need additional loopholes cut into it. There is no reason to make this rules change. It is unlikely that any significant segment of the public (aside from telemarketers) wants this rules change.