"Traves W. Coppock" <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote in
I heard on the radio that there are approximately 50 million households on
I also heard the telemarketers claim that this will put "millions" of
telemarketers out of work.
Personally I find it hard to make those two numbers match. Even if we assume
that "millions" means 2 million, that means that each telemarketer subsists
on calling only 25 people.
Second, since there are somewhere between one and two hundred million
households in the US, that implies that there are a minumum of eight million
people who make their living doing telemarketing. That is a problem right
I guess the lesson is to not believe the telemarking association. Of course
we all know this already...
I think that in their own arrogant way that they are saying if they loose
their jobs selling products, the manufacturers of those products would be
incapable of surviving and have to lay of millions...
Traves W. Coppock <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote:
You and fifty million other people, so far.
That's nearly 1/3 of _all_ residential phones in the entire country.
That's a pool of voters of a size that Congress _will_ take heed of.
Congresscritters _have_ already promised *immediate* action, if needed.
The FTC believes the current ruling is wrong, and has asked the judge
to delay his ruling, while appealed.
The entire tempest will be over in a week or so. with the list *intact*.
Implementation date might be delayed by a week, but that's the "worst case"
You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of
just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit
Doesn't matter. Off-shore calls _into_ the U.S. are _expressly_ covered by
the new rules. An advantage that the FTC has over the FCC.
Note: As of the close of business today, Thursday, both houses of congress
had passed, and sent to the President for signature, legislation to correct
the 'defect' that the OK court claimed to have found.
And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:59:52 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
I have my doubts that ruling will stand. The judge ruled the law
unconstitutional because it prohibits some telemarketing calls, and permits
others, based on content; he held that to do so is an unconstitutional
infringment of the telemarketers' First Amendment right to free speech.
I believe that ruling will be overturned, on the grounds that nobody has a
Constitutional right to telephone people who do not wish to receive calls,
i.e. there is no Constitutional right to be annoying.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
On 26 Sep 2003, Doug Miller spake unto rec.woodworking:
I agree that it will be overturned, but now it will take a bit of
time to wind through the courts.
Having gone through this on-again off-again roller coaster, I imagine
that those who signed on to the Do Not Call list are going to give an
earful to any telemarketer with the cojones to call after October 1st.
More of an earful than usual, I mean.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:05:21 GMT, email@example.com (Renata)
Can you imagine how much oil money would be lost if we,
the people, ruled out junk mail and phone calls? With so
much less to deliver (both mail and product), billions of
gallons of gas and oil per year would not be sold and
profiteered upon. How could our fearless leader allow that?
I'm sure the judges have their orders on such matters.
(Think how many officials that extra oil money can buy.)
Sign me: Fed up in OR.
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
Perhaps he is -to the press-. Or maybe it's because he has
always hated answering the phone in his mansions or in the
White House and being bothered by all those telemarketers.
Yeah, maybe that's it.
Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life.
Hello, Mr. President. I hear the windows in your house are very old and
ineffeicient, and that you don't yet have vinyl siding. We'll be sending
an agent to your residence to give you an estimate on dramatically lowering
your monthly energy costs.
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < firstname.lastname@example.org>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
The current gripe is about how many telemarketers will be laid off if this goes
through. By that logic we should also be worried about all the hookers and
crack dealers the cops put out of business.
It would actually be a raise in respectability if this phone scum became a
hooker. At least they provide a service to the customer.
The telemarketing people just don't get it, FoxNews had a statement by
one of the telemarketers who (paraphrasing) said, "We don't call people
to sell them something, we only call so that we can make an appointment
to sit down and explain the safety benefits that having a fire and smoke
detection system from us can provide". Glad they're not selling
Making it a free speech issue is nonsense, even if different classes
are prevented or allowed to make unsolicited calls, they have no
inherent right to annoy people with calls on telephones that they
neither own nor pay for. By this extension, they should have the right
to drive through neigborhoods with sound trucks since police and other
civil servants can do so in cases of emergency.
I totally concur. I was mystified by that Colorado judge's invocation
of the "free speech" doctrine to claim that the do-not call list
somehow infringed upon the telemarketers' Constitutional civil
liberties. The Founding Fathers were clearly stating that the First
Amendment protected individuals from persecution and/or imprisonment
for (primarily political) speech. The historical context, of course,
was the imprisonment of political opponents in Britain, France, and
elsewhere in Europe, or the arrests of individuals for criticism of an
existing government's policies. It was this that the framers were
opposing. The framers were *not* insisting that drunken hecklers be
allowed free rein to shout at and harass a family in a home 24 hours a
day. Free speech is a 2-way street, after all; the targets of the
telemarketers expressed their earnest wish not to be bothered by the
sales pitches at suppertime.
The telemarketers then cited some commerce clauses, claiming that the
do-not-call list prevented people who might otherwise desire to hear
of commercial offers by telephone, from being able to do so. Yet
that's precisely what the D-N-C list does-- people who truly don't
mind the telemarketing calls just don't opt to place themselves on the
list. What I can't quite fathom here is that, if anything, the D-N-C
list might actually *help* the business of the telemarketers, since it
will focus their calls on the subset of people who would hear them
out, rather than hang up after 3 words on the other line. This would
seem to increase business efficiency, since the telemarketers won't
waste so many calls on uninterested recipients. The list makes sense
from every perspective. The judge said something about "unequal
treatment" given to political and charity calls vs. commercial ones,
but this seems to be a red herring; AFAIK, numerous SCOTUS decisions
have asserted a distinct category for commercial speech, so the FTC
and Congress were entirely within legal bounds in giving special
consideration to telemarketers' calls.
Now, we need to nail the spammers. Especially with these 250
kb-attachment messages they've recently become fond of, they're even
worse than the telemarketers these days. Time to fight the good fight
Which will *NOT* hold up on appeal. The _exact_ same issue was raised
about the junk fax statute (TCPA, aka 47 USC 227), and the Sup Ct. held
that it _was_ Constitutional.
That doofus judge in Colorado needs a refresher course in constitutional
law. which the Appelate court _will_ give him.
The phone is a tool that I pay for for my convenience. If I
the phone rings and I stop doing what I am doing to answer
it because I have reason to expect a worthwhile call, and
it's a sales puke, then they have interrupted me and wasted
If you like sales pukes to call you, fine, but don't expect
the rest of us to enjoy going to answer the phone and find a
parasite on the other end of the line.
The idea that a sales 'droid should be allowed to ring a
bell inside your home to get your attention is ludicrous.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.