|Received:||11/29/2004 12:26:00 AM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:(I) This amendment will hurt consumers and the general public, and even the benefits for the telemarketers are unproven. It defeats the very reason DNC was put and acted on in the very first place. (II) As in the case of of unsolicited commercial email (UCE/SPAM), the laws (Federal and States) are partially based on the misuse of other people's resources. To deliver those spams, a misuse of other people's resources is done. (III) By allowing telemarketers (even those with established business relationship) to call consumers with pre-recorded message, the consumer's resource is being used, or more appropriately misused. There is a great chance that these calls will go to a consumer's answering message or in these modern days, to a voicemail. These are resources paid by the consumer, and leaving an unwanted message there is a similar misuse as those with spams. (IV) Furthermore, even with established businesses today, when a consumer receives a call from a live person, the consumer is given a chance to promptly notifiy the live telemarketer to remove his or her number from their telemarketing lists. This will be no longer possible with a recorded message. (V) Pre-recorded marketing message provides no obvious benefits to the business, because the consumer will typically hit the 'delete' button on his or her answering machine or voicemail, as soon as he or she realizes that the message is unwanted. Unlike talking with a live telemarketer who can wait or repeat the information, the consumer will most probably not reach for a pencil to jot down the information from the recorded message. The message will just get deleted, so there are no benefits for the business to make these calls. (VI) I hope that the FTC will continue to put consumer's rights first, as it did when it put DNC in place more than a year ago.