| Comment Number: | OL-100438 |
| Received: | 11/27/2004 10:42:25 AM |
| Organization: | self |
| Commenter: | Mark Holm |
| State: | PA |
| Subject: | Trade Regulation Rule on Telemarketing Sales |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Request for Comment |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 310 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Regarding allowing prerecorded telemarketing messages: I am opposed. If a business, with whom I have a business relationship, needs to contact me regarding some aspect of our business relationship, then it is important enough that they should have a person do it. If it isn't that important, then either I don't want to know about it, or they can send me a letter. If there were a way to restrict the prerecorded messages only to matters of importance, and not allow simple advertising, I would consider that. I doubt there is a practical way to make that distinction. Therefore, I am opposed to the whole idea. I am catagorically opposed to making this a separate class of opt out messages. I already opted out by placing my phone number in the Do Not Call registry. I do not want a loophole that requires me to individually opt out on a business by business basis. I am willing to accept opt in schemes, where they are allowed only on a business by business basis. For instance, when I establish a bank account, if the bank has a scheme that will automatically notify me of problems with my account, I would consider opting in to that scheme. I would not want that opt in action to subject me to advertising messages either from the bank or their "business partners". Opt in schemes should have clear boundaries, spelled out in the form af a binding document. Any opt in scheme also has to have a working opt out provision; an escape clause. Telemarketers are looking for a loophole. They want the rules changed so that they become vague enough to be unenforceable. Don't give them this opening. They will abuse it. Keep first in mind what I repeat below. Telemarketers and their trade organizations have proven themselves vile liars. They are not looking for a fair shake. They want a loophole to slime through. Regarding changing the measuring period for the 3 percent rule: If this is merely a technical change, intended to make compliance simpler, without diluting the effect of the rule, then I am not opposed. I caution the commission to be wary. Telemarketers, and especially their trade organizations, have proven themselves to be vile liars. Make sure that truely independent analysts approve of this change before adopting it. Do not accept the word of telemarketers. They have proven time and again that they are untrustworthy.