|Received:||11/28/2004 2:24:04 PM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:The rules should not be changed in this way. The first portion of the amendment, regarding automated dialing and pre-recorded messages, creates an unreasonable burden on the recipient, by making it harder to "opt-out" of call lists. Where it should be as simple as saying "Please do not call me again", automation creates a burden of listening to some arbitrary set of instructions, which may include calling a new number, and may thereby create the supposed "business relationship" because the "customer" originated the call. Even if a prior business relationship did exist, it is not reasonable to assume (as this amendment would) that the recipient desires to receive any sort of mass-distributed pre-recorded advertising message, which is clearly the purpose of this amendment. If companies wish to so market under the "prior business relationship" clause, they should be required to do it on their own behalf, at the very least, not by using a third party. This would allow better updating of "do not call" information in the originating company's databases. The second proposed amendment would reduce the amount of numbers required to be abandoned over the course of time. "No more than 3 percent ... per day per campaign" results in a maximum of about 90 percent over the course of 30 days for only one campaign, and more if there are multiple campaigns being run simultaneously. The proposed amendment would would reduce this to only 3 percent over the course of 30 days, regardless of the number of campaigns. The intent of the amendment is to reduce the number of removals from the list, which essentially means the right to ignore the wishes of those who do not want to receive those calls. This is very undesirable and is not in the interest of the citizens. Indeed, it is not in the interest of the businesses either, since such repeated calls after do-not-call requests have been made will only serve to annoy those who have been called. Telephone advertising, by its immediate, demanding, and resource consuming nature, places an unreasonable portion of the burden of communication on the recipient, which is different from almost all other forms of advertising. From a purely practical perspective, this form of advertising ties up the use of the telephone line and recipient for the duration of the call, preventing more important calls (all calls that are not advertising are, quite obviously, more important) from being received. Therefore, this form of advertising should be severely restricted in scope. This is why the national Do-Not-Call registry is so very popular and successful. These amendments reduce the restrictions already in place, and therefore should not be approved by the Federal Trade Commission. Thank you.