| Comment Number: | OL-104921 |
| Received: | 11/29/2004 11:16:24 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Adkins |
| State: | IL |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
The proposal to open a loophole in the national Do Not Call Registry to permit delivery of pre-recorded message telemarketing flies in the face of the Do Not Call Registry's contract with the American public. We signed up for the Do Not Call Registry because we trusted that our government was serious about correcting the problem of unwanted intrusions into our home life. This proposal indicates that our government may have misled us--at the least--and is ready to break the promise implied in the creation of that registry. The plan would essentially turn privately owned answering machines into noisy spam boxes. After all, many of us use answering machines to screen calls. I know we are aware of each call as it comes into our home answering machine, and we would be disturbed and annoyed by each and every such un-asked-for ring and recording. Not only that, but the calls would tie up our home phone, possibly creating an unsafe situation should we need to make an emergency call. It would certainly also fill up our answering machine tape with commercial appeals better suited for direct mailing. We certainly did not purchase an answering machine in order to record commercials. Nor do we pay monthly fees for the priviledge of having a phone for that purpose. Rather than letting consumers opt out of receiving further such calls, the FTC should permit such calls only if and when consumers actively opt in to them. What part of Do Not Call does the FTC's division of marketing practices not understand?