|Received:||1/10/2005 4:12:17 PM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:Sir, If I programmed my computer to make repeatedly make automated phone calls to one of these telemarketing firms that had already phoned me - which establishes a "relationship", I'd be charged with denial-of-service harassment. But how is that different? I do _NOT_ want unsolicited sales pitches sent to me period. Especially across a medium that I respond to since it might be my spouse, or a family member, friend or something, so I typically will allow myself to be disturbed and choose to answer a ringing phone. Denial-of-Relaxation harassment. What I do _NOT_ want to hear is some sales pitch -whether by person OR machine. The Do_Not_Call_Registry is a GREAT Idea!!! It remains so. Please do not soften it by making any leaks in it for these vermin (excuse me) disturbers of family peace time to exploit for their own personal gain. I have yet to meet _ANYONE_ that likes to receive these calls. and anyone who believes people enjoy these calls is deceiving themself. Should that same person make any sort of public representation that people in general enjoy them, such as attributed to Voice Mail Broadcasting Corp president Jesse Crowe in an article found at URL http://www.bankrate.com/nsc/news/advice/20041221a1.asp in which he says people "...want to get his automated calls. 'Actually, customers really like these messages.'" What utter self serving hogwash from someone in a position to make big personal financial gains if the rule is changed. Please keep his opinions in the proper subjective perspective. Sure his business time is worth something, so is my personal time. He sells his business time, can I sell him my personal time? Why can't I send him a bill for my listening services. I'll change my voicemail message to: Hello, you found me. Business phone calls are billed at business rates. $20 Minimum for the first 5 minutes, then $3 per minute. Credit cards accepted, or monthly billing. Non-payment of invoice adds a $25 late payment charge monthly. Continuing implies acceptance of these terms. I arbitrarily exempt certain personal phone calls. Feel free to leave as long a message as you want, since you're paying for the time.<beep> All this information would be in my voice mail message. Mr. Crowe's autodialers would be accepting my conditions each time they dialed my number. I could legally bill him for listening services rendered, plus accrued late fees etc... It would not be my problem if his autodialers would not be able to listen to my message and decide for themselves not to accept my conditions. I wonder if I could collect. It will be fun trying to harass the harassers. I've enjoyed being left alone. I've enjoyed knowing that when the phone rings, it's pretty much always someone I've actually wanted to talk to. The phone company is referred to as a utility. Families rely on phones in their everyday lives. Technology is offering new options which will make this decision a moot point, similiar to the problem of handling SPAM email on computers. I predict End-User control of which calls get through will become available very soon, based on Caller-ID. End-Users will pre-select which mode of operation to be in, from : ID List Others --------- --------- (pass/save,pass/save) - pass (ring) all incoming calls, save if busy (pass/save, save ) - pass (or save if busy) calls whose caller-ID is on my authorized list, save messages for other callers, (pass/save, refuse ) - don't save messages for other callers, ( save , refuse ) - privace mode, essentially shutting the phone off. The technology to support the above 4 modes is getting real close, using caller-id. It puts control of my phone back in my (consumer) hands, where it belongs. Please do _NOT_ soften the Do_Not_Call_Registry. If anything, PLEASE make it Stronger. Rather than "Opting Out", why not ask consumers to "Opt In"? Then we'd see if _ANYBODY_ really wants solicitors calls!