| Comment Number: | OL-104467 |
| Received: | 11/29/2004 11:53:01 AM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Markham |
| State: | NC |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
This provision weakens an already weak law. I feel strongly that my phone numbers being on the 'Do Not Call' registry is no different than putting a sign on my front door that says 'No Soliciting'. Since the new law has been in effect, it has cut down, although not substantially, the un-wanted tele-marketing calls. Now the marketers spoof their caller ID information, so the burden of figuring out who these marketers are that are calling is overwhelming. All the punative damages available to prosecute these marketers is worthless, if I cannot easily report them, and get them shut off. My offfice fax machine churns out 15-20 unsolicited faxes, many with the same call removal number month after month, wasting my ink and my paper. The burden of proof in reporting and getting these junk-faxers prosecuted is too much for the average person or small company to persue. The same thing has occurred with the 'Do Not Call' registry. Until the law addresses the technicalities required to get the accurate caller ID from the local phone company, the effectivness of this law will continue to erode. Not withstanding the purposeful erosion this amendment will have, this law is mostly ineffictive.