I've been waiting for this

I am! I am!

When October rolls around, I fully expect to get rid of my PrivacyDirector service.

I estimate that we had an 80% reduction in junk calls when MA introduced the state DNC list, and I'm hoping that this will get rid of 80% or more of the rest!

i've been waiting for this, too, but there seems to be enough exceptions to make the law almost useless.

how did those specific industries (long-distance telecom, airlines, banks and insurance) lobby for exceptions to the law, anyway? what possible legitimate reason would an airline have to cold-call me, if i don't already have an existing business relationship with them (i.e., i bought a ticket and the flight time changes, for instance)? i don't get it.

--dan.

there seems to be enough exceptions to make the law almost useless.

I don't think so, as most of those companies are not where the bulk of my calls come from. I agree, however, that I see no reason for an airline to call unless you were doing business with them already (which is already exempt anyway). Perhaps this is just more of the "lets help out the airline industry" stuff?

Now they just need a "do not knock on my door" registry.

Now they just need a "do not knock on my door" registry.

many locations already have this, in effect. in my town, i can stop by village hall and pick up a "no solicitors" sticker to put by the door. violators can be fined, etc. seems like most places i've lived have offered this.

--dan.

how did those specific industries (long-distance telecom, airlines, banks and insurance) lobby for exceptions to the law, anyway? what possible legitimate reason would an airline have to cold-call me, if i don't already have an existing business relationship with them (i.e., i bought a ticket and the flight time changes, for instance)? i don't get it.

It's not the case that those industries successfully lobbied for exemptions to the Do Not Call rule. Rather, the FTC has never had jurisdiction over those industries on the theory that they are already highly regulated by other government agencies (FCC, FAA, etc). I think that's a good thing in general since the alternative would inevitably lead to companies having to follow contradictory regulations issued by competing agencies.

It is worth noting that if an exempt company (other than an insurance company) engages the services of a telemarketing firm, the telemarketing firm itself is subject to the rule. The FTC resisted several attempts to relax this constraint.

According to the FTC website, the FCC has already started the rulemaking process on subjecting telecom firms to the Do Not Call List. I would bet that once the rule kicks in that there will be enough pressure to close the loopholes that the other agencies will do their own rulemaking (although, having never actually been telemarketed by an airline, I could see the FAA not bothering). Similarly, I would expect almost all states to mandate the use of the FTC list for intrastate calls within a couple years.

Unfortunately, I don't see any relief forthcoming on charitable and political calls. Restricting political calls would not only require congresscritters to act against their own interests, but would face serious constitutional issues. And, for some reason I've never been able to fathom, Congress is loath to regulate charities.

--John

I don't think so, as most of those companies are not where the bulk of my calls come from.

I wish I could agree with you here, but long-distance companies and banks account for the bulk of the calls I get. As I said above, the FCC is probably going to close the loophole for long-distance companies. Forcing the banks to use the list too would be a big win.

--John

I assume you guys have heard this....

EDIT: Don't click on the attachment, use the link instead, the file was too big so I've stuck it on my own webspace....

in my town, i can stop by village hall and pick up a "no solicitors" sticker to put by the door. violators can be fined, etc

I'd love to see someone slap some girl scout with a fine

I think we have a similar thing in our neighborhood. Or perhaps our houses are spaced apart enough so that it isn't worth the trouble. I'm sure you could do far better in a townhouse complex.

I am way excited about the DNC list. We also have the call blocking but it works much better for us than others have said. It's nice to have absolutely no phone calls during the day. Even if people we know are blocked, hey, we're not getting bugged

I estimate that we had an 80% reduction in junk calls when MA introduced the state DNC list, and I'm hoping that this will get rid of 80% or more of the rest!

Well, here's hoping it works as well as the UK one (the Telephone Preference Service). Since I signed up for TPS last September, I've had no junk calls at all. Couple that with the fact that very nearly everyone of my generation calls my mobile, and I can very nearly get away with answering the land line "Hi, Mum".

Peter

thanks for the insight. that really makes much more sense.

--dan.

Where did that come from ?

But that said BT are the worse for me they are always trying to offer me a better value service.

It was on a page about larking (I think that's what it was called), it was linked from a site about the BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)....

Regardless of any prior business relationship or registered charity etc etc you can ask them not to call you again. They are then subject to the same restrictions on non-exempt organizations, and the same 11K fine.

I never got around to signing up for the Texas version of the DNC list, but my parents did it and they seemed to like it, despite spending whatever $3 to do it. I tried the national one when it first came out, and the web site had been Slashdotted. Today, it was going very fast, so I registered everything in ten seconds flat.

As a bonus, from the recent Slashdot thread, I learned about SpamGourmet, a convenient service for creating disposable e-mail addresses. It's very simple and appears to work well.

Sneakemail is a little more flexible.