| Comment Number: | OL-106337 |
| Received: | 12/6/2004 12:30:12 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | George Stauffer |
| State: | CA |
| 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 strongly oppose any change in the law that allows greater telemarketing. In fact, I would strongly support legislation that strengthens these laws to eliminate calls from charities and those companies that allegedly have "pre-existing relationships" with consumers. The biggest reason that most people, like myself, support these laws is that the calls are intrusive into our privacy, and are intentionally timed to coincide with our family time, like during our dinner or just after our one-year-old has gone to bed. My wife and I both have to maintain full-time jobs, and any disturbance into the little family time that we have is unwelcome. If companies want to randomly market, or if those with whom I do business want to tell me about a special offer, or if charities want to solicit my generousity, then they may do it via US Postal Service or e-mail, should I choose to give them that address. That way, I can read their messages if and when I choose to do so. I consider mailed offers or non-spam e-mail offers to be just that - offers. I may be interested in these offers, and I consider such mail beneficial. I consider telemarketing to be an invasion of my privacy. Essentially, it is an electronic entry into my life. If I do not want people to knock on my door, I have an option to erect a fence. If I do not want to speak with sales clerks, I have the option to avoid certain stores. However, I have no reasonable ability to stop people from calling me incessantly, waking my baby, interrupting my dinner, intruding into my conversations, and causing general nuisance. Why?