Congress Screws the Pooch Once More...
...from the Washington Post
Short-sighted, lobbyist-loving dickheads. That, or the judge was bought and paid for by telemarketing scumbag corporations. Oh wait, that's kind of redundant.
Quote:
A U.S. District Court has knocked down the federal government's plan to curb unsolicited telemarketing calls through a national do-not-call list that was scheduled to start next week.
More than 50 million phone numbers have been posted to the anti-telemarketing registry; as of October 1, telemarketers were supposed to stop calling those numbers.
Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City issued a decision late Monday saying the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to develop the list.
Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said. An administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must "always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress," West said.
A U.S. District Court has knocked down the federal government's plan to curb unsolicited telemarketing calls through a national do-not-call list that was scheduled to start next week.
More than 50 million phone numbers have been posted to the anti-telemarketing registry; as of October 1, telemarketers were supposed to stop calling those numbers.
Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City issued a decision late Monday saying the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to develop the list.
Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said. An administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must "always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress," West said.
Short-sighted, lobbyist-loving dickheads. That, or the judge was bought and paid for by telemarketing scumbag corporations. Oh wait, that's kind of redundant.
Comments
Originally posted by Moogs
...from the Washington Post
Short-sighted, lobbyist-loving dickheads. That, or the judge was bought and paid for by telemarketing scumbag corporations. Oh wait, that's kind of redundant.
Someone on /. posted the phone number for the Judge in this case. Not surprisingly, his receptionist now just hangs up the phone when it rings.
A) The judge was paid off somehow / got some professional benefit from his decision... meaning he knew he was splitting hairs and thus his ruling was a political act.
or
1) They were lobbied
or
2) They simply didn't consider it when they should have.
This just sucks beyond words....
Originally from the Washington Post
Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said. An administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must "always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress," West said.
Maybe this isn't about giving into lobbyists for the telemarketers. Maybe this is about having a bill rushed through Congress at the last minute to grant the needed authority... oh, with a few special riders on the bill like, oh, permitting drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge.
Today brought better news of this issue however. Simply AMAZING how fast Congress can get together and ACT on a particular issue when they want to isn't it? 24 hours was all it took to get massive support for a new bill / "addendum" to grant the FTC the proper authority, and have it pass through both the House and Senate.
What the hell do these people spend their time on the rest of the Congressional session? Power-lunches and philabusters? Really makes me question the way the whole thing is structured... that they can constantly bitch that "it's not my fault nothing got done... it's Congressional GRIDLOCK, maaan!" when in reality, they can pass just about any law at any time if they are of a mind to cooperate.
Then again, telemarketers are hated equally by everyone so it's not surprising there is no opposition (except where the odd lobbyist is concerned -- no doubt that's where those ~ 8 abstensions / no-votes came from today in the House).
A SECOND judge has ruled against the No-Call List.
What's the point? Just to make a gesture that says "we support this!" Like a federal judge will really give a crap.
This is gonzo... makes no sense at all. Apparently the judges think that tens of millions of people who elected to sign up of their own free will are having decisions "made for them" by the FTC. More proof our court system needs an overhaul....
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
Man the world is so Fvcked.
word...
though I am kind of for them going against this bill. I have plenty of friends, who would have lost their jobs if this went through...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I don't like cold calls, but government should not block them. We don't live in a socialist state.
What's your phone number? I'll tell the tele-marketers to screw off when they interrupt me and that you're willing to take their calls.
I didn't get a phone line to have another avenue of marketing opened. I only expect to receive phone calls from people that I gave my phone number to.
The occasional call from someone who can't read their own writing is okay. Wrong number diallers get annoying when they can't be convinced that the number they wrote down is wrong and they call back 3 or 4 times.
Or are the courts going to protect businesses while not protecting individuals? That would be a shame.
The Direct Marketing Association is getting all riled up saying that the 'Do Not Call' list will reduce their profits and cause people to lose jobs.
Yes, people will lose jobs, but this list will actually increase the tele-marketers efficiency and increase their profits.
No longer will they have to waste time calling any of the 50 MILLION people who don't want to hear their drivel.
They can reduce the size of their workforce and know that the people that they are calling are not so adverse to receiving marketing calls. This should increase the percentage of successful calls that each employee produces.
If employees were to be saved, however, then the marketers would be able to complete each campaign in a much shorter period of time.
Somehow I think that the people who didn't sign up for the DNC registry will be receiving many more calls.
Originally posted by bunge
That's 50 Million numbers, not people. I'm sure it's still a lot of people, but we should try and keep it in perspective. Somehow I doubt one sixth of the population even knows about the program, much less did anything about it.
Yeah, didn't think about that as I was typing. I did know it was 'numbers' not 'people'.
Regardless, it's still 50 Million less calls to be made.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Yeah, didn't think about that as I was typing. I did know it was 'numbers' not 'people'.
Regardless, it's still 50 Million less calls to be made.
True. I just happened to make the same mistake at first and wondered how the hell that many people could do it.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I don't like cold calls, but government should not block them. We don't live in a socialist state.
Jesus ****ing Christ. You're so opposed to the very principle of socialism that you're prepared to abrogate your basic ****ing human right to privacy and a life without harassment just so that a complete ****ing stranger CAN TRY AND SELL YOU SOMETHING.
I think we should analyze the kinds of calls we're getting, and not the fact that we're getting them. I've become quite good at politely declining and getting off the phone in less than 15 seconds. The people on the other side of the phone are humans too and should be treated with dignity and respect. And not that I've ever done telemarketing, but I'm just talking as a member of the human race.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Jesus ****ing Christ. You're so opposed to the very principle of socialism that you're prepared to abrogate your basic ****ing human right to privacy and a life without harassment just so that a complete ****ing stranger CAN TRY AND SELL YOU SOMETHING.
There is no mention of the right to privacy in the US constitution. That is a misconception.