| Comment Number: | OL-103426 |
| Received: | 11/28/2004 11:00:15 AM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Tom Hogland |
| State: | AK |
| 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 am against both proposed changes. To allow telemarketing to numbers listed as "Do Not Call" simply because they're pre-recorded defeats the purpose of the list. If I don't want sales calls enough that I'll list my phone number in a national database, why would I want them if they're pre-recorded? The restriction to companies that I have a "established business relationship" with does nothing towards correcting this, either. The definition of "established business relationship" is already stretched so far it's frightening, with companies selling their lists of "established business relationships" to others. As for changing call abandonment from 3% per campaign per day to an average of 30 days, this change will mean that telemarketing companies would be able to track call abandonment statistics for the month, then change their call patterns at the last minute to make sure they meet the averages. A daily, per-campaign average doesn't give time for skewing results. The purpose of this law isn't to make life easier for telemarketing companies - it's to make life better for consumers by keeping unwanted marketing-related phone calls from being received. Perhaps the proper place to look for amending this law is in further restricting "acceptable" uses. Personal example: In the six weeks before the last election I received *nine* phone calls asking if I was voting for a certain candidate. The first one I answered normally, the second I said that they had already called and received an apology and was told that they'd note that. MY girlfriend took the next two, and not knowing what I said she responded exactly the same way. (At this point we compared notes...) The fifth time I said that I'd been called four times and to not call back again, at which point they said they were from the candidate's local office and hadn't called us before, but wouldn't call again. During both the sixth and seventh calls, I specifically said "place me on your Do Not Call list" and was reminded that the Do Not Call list doesn't apply to them, at which point I reminded them that the Do Not Call rules still do. The eighth call was taken by the girlfriend, who said the same as I had for calls six and seven. The ninth call, I asked who it was, calling from where, in behalf of whom, and told them that I had specifically asked to be on their Do Not Call list, and that if I was called back once more I'd pursue them legally. The last call was less than a week before the election, and I don't know if my lack of further calls was due to them actually obeying the law or simply running out of time... If you want to amend the law, how about restricting political calls? Perhaps a disclaimer that says that they may be able to call "on behalf of", but once they do there's no further calls "on behalf of" that person or party. I'd also like to see it mentioned that "a prerecorded answering message that states 'no political or sales calls are accepted at this number' shall be considered the same as the person owning the number requesting they not be called", perhaps with a disclaimer that if they receive an answering machine with that message they *are* allowed to leave a message, but can't call back again. Thank you, Tom Hogland