| Comment Number: | OL-109781 |
| Received: | 12/11/2004 1:23:30 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Michael Lyons |
| State: | NJ |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Why are we trying to complicate something that is so clearly defined in three short words...Do Not Call. How much taxpayer money is being wasted trying to extrapolate a different meaning from Do Not Call. I am currently involved in a effort to opt-out concerning a privacy issue, the sharing my personal information with others, in connection with a privacy notice sent to me by my local cable company. After taking the time to request opting-out by letter, two months later I have yet to receive conformation from the company acknowledging same. Shouldn't this process be turned around, and assume that if I took the time and effort to sign up for the Do Not Call Registry, it means that without my express written consent, one may assume that Do Not Call means exactly that. Let's dump Prerecorded Message EBR Telemarketing, Project No. R411001 and turn our attention back to pure simplicity and peaceful dinners.