| Comment Number: | OL-112563 |
| Received: | 12/31/2004 5:38:06 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Nanna Frye |
| 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:
Dear FTC: First of all, shame on you, FTC, for your text under "How to Comment." This is a topic where the general public has an interest and it should be written in a "plain English" style so that it is comprehensible. Each of the three sentences in this paragraph is more than three lines long and the phrase "call abandonment safe harbor" is meaningless to the vast majority of us., including me with my three degrees (B.S., M.S. & J.D.) It is only from reading a privacy clearinghouse newsletter that I have an understanding of what this proposed change entails. Please adopt a policy of writing in a manner that is more easily understood by the general public. I object to this proposal. It is already objectionable that I *must* submit myself to telemarketing calls from a company solely because I have conducted business with them. In my opinion, I should still be able to prevent those telemarketing calls but that rallying cry is for another day. Currently, my sole means of discouraging this telephone contact is to cut off the telemarketer and consistently tell them that I never accept such calls. I do this with the hope that the company will realize that it is not worth the expense of having an employee call me when I have such a policy in place and will then cross me off the contact list. Unfortunately, there is no such expense associated with a machine calling me and playing a recorded message so I am left defenseless. Please reject this proposal as not being in the public's best interests. Nanna K. Frye