From: B. Amy Clouse I am scared to death right now, because my husband refused to give (since the groups in question would get less than 15% of the total take) that i
To: FTC.SERIUS("tsr@ftc.gov")
Date: Thu, Jan 24, 2002 12:48 AM
Subject: Proposed Rule


Comments per your outline:

a) The phone number should remain on the list until the consumer actively requests in writing or by email that the name be removed or that the number has been changed.

b) Both the spouse and the adult child should be able to put a number on the "do not call" list. My own mother has almost injured herself trying to rush to answer a phone. The older generation believes all calls should be answered and they dislike answering machines, call forwarding, etc. Telemarketers take full advantage of this, plus they try to fast-talk the older person, hoping to dupe them into buying something. If you don't believe me, set up a sting in any area of the US and pose as an elderly citizen. Every time one of these vultures calls my mother's home and I answer and they think they have her, they try to fast talk me; they even make veiled threats about dire consequences of turning down their offers. If you confront them they will deny that intimidation or coercion was their intent. Right.

c) A mailed message to the home of the person requesting the service should be sufficient verification. Lack of a mailed reply within 90 days should result in the removal of the number from the "do not call" list. A reminder call or letter in 30 days and again in 60 days would be additional insurance.

d) I cannot imagine, in my wildest dreams, that anyone would actually WANT a telemarketer to call them, harass them, intimidate them, and mostly interrupt their lives. I get at least 9 calls a day (the record is 24 private, anonymous, or out of area numbers on my caller ID). I would vote for all or none. It is simpler for you to administer and generally, if someone puts their name on that list, they don't want ANY calls.

e) If a person has a pre-existing relationship with a caller, then that person is no longer involved in telemarketing but in a bona-fide customer/company or donor/recipient role. Therefore, this is a moot point.

Section 2

a) The benefit to consumers is to allow them to choose services with which they want to correspond and to eliminate harassment.

b) The impact on firms is substantial. Many of them will go under, I have no doubt. But I also think they deserve exactly what they get. Most of their money is ill-gotten gain anyway, received from intimidated customers who mistakenly felt that they would be left alone if they made a purchase or availed themselves of the service. Companies that are not involved in shady practices will find other ways to do business and will prosper, and we will all be better off! As for fundraising, see my final comment below.

Fundraisers always hint that not giving to their charity, especially in the case of firemen, police, and EMS, will result in no response to a call for help from you. It's like buying protection from the Mafia, not like giving to a good cause!

c) Industry will probably have a period of adjustment, but will probably stabilize early on as the market adjusts to more humane rules for doing business. If most of these places put effort into customer service rather than customer intimidation, their customers would be calling THEM -- not them calling to get customers.

d) Costs can be recouped by levying substantial fines for a certain number of complaints against a company.

e) Making the offensive companies support the list via fines would quickly end most offenses. Afterwards, a small surcharge of perhaps $1 - $2 a month on the phone bill should sustain the list until finally, telemarketing is no longer profitable, no longer occurs, becomes illegal (hopefully!), and then the list is no longer needed.

f) Small businesses that are legitimate generally do not resort to the harassing tactics of most telemarketers. Therefore I believe there will be little impact on them.

Thank you for listening. I wish you guys would cut to the chase and make telemarketing and fund raising by phone illegal. Professional fundraisers get most of the take for themselves, and many of them associated with paraprofessional organizations like the FOP, volunteer firemen, etc., hint that if you do not give at least $30 annually to the municipal, county, state, and national branches, if your house catches fire or you need the police, they will not come because you did not contribute. I have been harassed by the FOP and the firemen's groups from all 4 areas repeatedly for years. I am scared to death right now, because my husband refused to give (since the groups in question would get less than 15% of the total take) that if something happens that I need police or fire protection or EMS, no one might come because they really made good on the threat and I will be on my own. There is no mechanism to just give to the group without going through these fundraising groups, so I can't help without them, and with them my help is miniscule. I would love to see professional fundraisers and telemarketers' put out of work by a law that makes such activities a jail sentence. When I think of all the old people living on next to nothing who go without prescriptions sometimes to donate to the firemen or police or EMS so that they will have emergency care, or who go without adequate food or heat, I get very upset. I know these professionals cannot legally refuse to help, nor would most of them. But the old people don't always know that and they are scared. It is not right. Please fix