|Received:||12/10/2004 2:08:26 PM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:I cannot believe that any amendment is being considered. The law should not allow any new loopholes, they can already call #s listed who were consumers in the past year despite being listed, ie "current consumers". I think, esp. living in SD, that consumers do not need the pressure of being bothered by phone calls for product consumption. We are overwhelmed with ads in mailboxes, ads on tv, door-to-door sellers/flyers (which are now on the rise), on emails and WITH THE PHONE CALLS THAT CONTINUE DESPITE THE DO NOT CALL LIST. I still have to pay to have my number unreachable by 'blocked' numbers to try to limit my telemarketing calls despite being registered on the list. I work in a law firm and still continuously receive unwanted solicitations by phone there as well. Those who should be reviewing and respecting this list, and be held to it, are not. Stop wasting time amending it and ENFORCE IT first, perhaps then their complaints will be more valid. We have eliminated the middle class and everyone is struggling in this USA to live at a point of manageable debt. I think Americans rights to higher minimum wage, less credit/consumer availability should receive some focus over the inevitable encouragement by telemarketing upon citizens to incur greater debt. The majority of people live month to month in the red and using credit to pay for living costs, we need to cut back on spending in this country as a whole (our national deficit is what?) and telemarketing is only an incentive on a smaller scale for us to incur debt and a way for unscrupulous marketers to take advantage of citizens, such as the elderly or ill, "fixed incomes", that are home and available to take such calls throughout the day. At this point, I pay money to have a home phone line I can not answer plus an added feature to that phone line to try to prevent unsolicated calls EVEN WITH THE DO NOT CALL LIST as it is. PLEASE DO NOT GIVE THEM A FURTHER LOOPHOLE!!!!! Please work on enforcing what we have established before even entertaining their arguments on restrictions when they are not held to such restrictions anyway. Aside, regarding the computerized messages, there is no valid argument unless you require it to be a REAL LIVE PERSON being paid because at least that will help offset the economic impact by actually CREATING JOBS for humans not computers. I think live people plus a 3 year maximum on past consumer contact would be MORE THAN FAIR if a compromise is even necessary. At this point, it is becoming evident that this list was just created to appease people on the surface, it was never meant as a true solution.