| Comment Number: | OL-102261 |
| Received: | 11/27/2004 9:25:29 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Travis Dixon |
| State: | MD |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Regarding Docket Id: RIN 3084-0098: I would just like my voice to be heard that I consider ANY additional allowances permitting telemarketing to be a very bad idea. The telephone has the power to be a very intrusive device while still being a vital service for many. One prime example of this is those of us who rely on it for business purposes (being on-call) but not necessarily working the common 9-5 hours of most. In this case it is impossible to ignore calls since our livelyhood depends on them. Telemarketing calls cross the boundary, and recorded message calls are absolutely the worst example of this in that they give no recourse for the affected callee to ask to be place on a do-not-call list or otherwise. In any case, until the telemarkers decide to pay for 100% of my phone service, they do not have any right to call me to pitch their services. This is what other, opt-in media is for, and has proven time and time again to be just as effective if not more so. The telemarketers need to understand that continuing to try to reach out to those of us who opted to enroll in the national do-no-call list will not only not respond to their calls, but will actively take steps to avoid them altogether and to discourage others from patronizing them as well. Please not that I think these same rules of engagement should apply to politicians as well, not just commercial entities. Please consider my opinion on this when making your decision on this matter.