| Comment Number: | OL-112181 |
| Received: | 12/23/2004 10:04:57 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Sally Lay |
| State: | AZ |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
If telemarketers want to pay my phone bill, then they can call me. I own my phone service and my internet service as long as I pay my bills. This is NOT an issue of free speech...it is an issue of privacy and trespass. These communications occur inside my house, since I don't have a party line. I don't let salespeople or unknown or unwelcome people into my house when they show up on my doorstep; nor should I have to pay for privacy services to block them from coming into my home via the phone line, DSL, or cable. These people are intruding into my property and services for which I pay. Bluntly, I don't want to pay for their intrusions, whether I do business with them or not. Once the telephone signal hits the box on my house, I own the communication, and the communication occurs inside my house. If they intrude uninvited, this, in my view, is unlawful entry, and almost all states prosecute that. (HMMMM! Test case?) I would not let these callers into my house if they appeared in person. I won't let them in via the lines inside my house, either. Further, these businesses are sharing my personal information with others and without my permission. I should not have to opt-out on sharing my personal identity. This information should be ABSOLUTELY private. This proposal is a violation of my right to privacy and to protection from unwanted intrusion into my life choices. Marketers pay the mailing costs to clutter my mailbox; thus, they can do what they want. But no salesperson can enter my home without my permission and risks trepassing charges or unlawful entry charges if they attempt to force their way in. The same standard applied to door-to-door sales should also be applied to telephones and the internet. And to dispense with the argument that such jobs provide employment, the wages are excessively low, and we don't need these jobs in our economy. We already have too many low wage jobs and too many good paying jobs sent overseas that grossly underpay foreign employees and deprive them of protections afforded US employees. Denying companies access to invading citizen privacy in their homes may be a good first step toward reforming the way US companies do business. If telemarketing, which has a low ROI relative to costs, is eliminated, US companies may be forced to be more creative, efficient, and ethical in their management and marketing practices. Finally, I favor and will fully support and advocate for a more European system that requires companies to contact only those people who opt-in and ask to be called. That's one good practice with Infomercials: total freedom of consumer choice to watch the informercial and contact the company. Sincerely, Sally Lay