|Received:||11/28/2004 5:40:31 PM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:Hell, no. The Direct Marketing Association's proposed changes open a loophole big enough to drive a truck through based on the tricky "previous business relationship" language. There are already a large number of marketeers using this justificaiton to call numbers already on the "do not call" list by stretching the definition far beyond what any reasonable person would consider "reasonable". Subsequently, this provision should be denied. Additionally, the provisions that allow changes to the language specifiying a 30-day period should also be denied. Consumers like myself want an abandonment of ALL automated abandonment: if they are going to waste my time, they should have a person available to answer the phone 100% of the time with 0% abandonment, however allowing it to be measured in a fixed time period allows for too much flexibility. The rule was designed to be difficult for DMA members to implement: it should remain as it stands. The Direct Marketing Association seems to convenently forget that most consumers consider telemarking an annoyance. The original language of the Do Not Call List proposal expresses in very clear terms that those of us who have added our numbers to the list DO NOT WANT TO BE CALLED. The sooner the DMA and their members realize this, the better off the consumer public will be.