|Received:||11/29/2004 3:53:05 PM|
|Subject:||Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales|
|Title:||Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment|
|CFR Citation:||16 CFR Part 310|
Comments:What part of DO NOT CALL don't you understand? When I signed up for both the Colorado and the national no-call list, I meant what I said: If you're a telemarketer, DO NOT CALL me at home - period, end of sentence, no exceptions. In fact, I refuse to do business with any company that ignores my DO NOT CALL instructions. If I want to hear from a company, I will OPT IN directly with that company. I really resent any move to force me (and millions of other consumers) to individually OPT OUT. By the way, I find the PRERECORDED MESSAGES that you are thinking of allowing EVEN MORE ANNOYING than live calls (if that's possible). At least if there's a person on the other end, I can express my utter disgust with their telemarketing tactics that waste my valuable time. Prerecorded messages are nothing but impersonal spam that threaten to clog my answering machine and possibly to cause me to miss real messages from real people with whom I want to converse. Bottom line: The proposed amendment is a TERRIBLE IDEA. We consumers don't want the FTC to allow any more commercial spam loopholes. Instead, we want the FTC to do its job and provide us with protection from these unwanted intrusions into our homes and lives!