Reach Out and Touch Someone Else

Telemarketers are cursing under their breaths as the National Do Not Call Registry opens for business. The default libertarian reaction, I suppose, is to oppose this as one more form of business regulation. I'm not so sure.

On your physical property, you can slap up a sign by your gate, or on your door, that reads "no solicitation," and at least in theory (though I don't know that anyone would actually call the cops) someone who ignored it would be trespassing. The way our telephone networks are built, there's no comparable way to do the same thing on your telephone, which is no less your property. So this doesn't strike me as particularly offensive: if it's regulation, it's regulation of a bottom-up sort that allows individuals to limit access to their telephone line in the same way that they can already control access to their front yards.

So what about the fact that it's being done at the federal level? Well, the Interstate Commerce Clause is probably the most abused and misused portion of the Constitution, but this seems to at least arguably fall within its proper scope. Phone networks obviously cross state lines, a solicitation is commerce, and it seems one could make an argument that a system of 50 different lists and 50 different sets of rules would be unwieldy, conditions which suggest that the federal power "to regulate commerce between the several states" could be legitimately invoked. Thoughts?

Comments

[Anonymous]

same issue as the fed spam control: 1) will it work and 2) how bad will it fail

[Neil Block]

"Your" phone line is a misnomer... you pay the telephone company to use its phone lines and the accompanying service. It's akin to a car lease, where you don't actually own the car. If you don't like phone solicitors, tough nuts. No one forces you to have a phone in the first place -- it's optional, and phone solicitation is a generally accepted consequence of owning a phone.

Still don't like it? Switch to a competing phone company that doesn't sell your phone number off. Competition is wonderful, isn't it?

[Skip Oliva]

There is arguably a valid federal role in regulating the use of interstate phone lines by telemarketers. But that does not justify the FTC's action, which when you examine the Do Not Call registry in context, is nothing more than an FTC effort to expand its jurisdiction. The FTC is constantly struggling for relevancy, and recently it's led them to increasing their harassment of small businesses--through misapplication of the antitrust laws--and going after popular targets for false advertising, such as weight loss product manufacturers.

The FTC jumped on Do Not Call because it has a populist constituency. This in turn earns the FTC goodwill and an implicit agreement from Congress not to scrutinize the FTC's more nefarious (and often illegal) antitrust enforcement actions.

[Curt Warner]

I see nothing wrong with a no-call registry at the federal level. It serves a purpose. But:

I don't know when we decided that a ringing phone has to be answered immediately, no matter the circumstances. The phone, in whatever form, is there for the convenience of its owner, not the caller. So if you're sitting down to dinner or at a movie, you don't have to answer the phone!

My dad considers telemarketers calling him harassment and an invasion of his privacy. I think that's just silly.

[Anonymous]

its called Caller ID. check it out sometime.

[Evan McElravy]

Neil, if you rent a house, you can still put a "No Solicitation" sign up. Likewise, if you lease your automobile, you can still tell squeegee kids to fuck off. Your parallel is bogus. In any event, what gave you the idea that it was the phone company that was primarily behind giving your number away to telemarketers in the first place?

[Julian]

Well, property is always a partially disaggregable "bundle" of rights. I rent my apartment, but certain specific, time-limited property rights still come with that rental. Nobody forces me to have an apartment either; it's still trespassing if you come in without permission. And the "generally accepted consequence" reasoning is as circular as the "reasonable expectation of privacy" reasoning used in 4th Amendment jurisprudence. If there were no trespassing laws, people stomping across your lawn would be a predictable consequence of owning a house, too. Oh, and needless to say, "tough nuts" doesn't constitute an argument.

[Jade Monk]

Telemarketing is a form, albeit a minor, irritating one, of theft in that it co-opts resources that you are paying to use. Imagine if someone cut your electricity at the street and would only turn it on again after he was done with his business pitch or until you shooed him away. The consumer is paying for the service from the electric company and a third party is trying to interject himself into that relationship. And no one says you have to have electricity -- it's strictly optional. Tough nuts.

Not only is it bothersome having to deal with telemarketers or the repercussions of their calls (like waking up the baby) but they're tying up a resource the consumer is paying for. You could miss an important business call, a call from your spouse, etc. If someone did what telemarketers do to any of our other utilities, we'd be discussing gun-control legislation, not do-not-call lists.

Frankly, I'm thinking about following a friend's example, cutting my land line, and going completely cellular.

[Neil Block]

You people are too damn smart for me. I'm trying out this "intellectual" argument stuff after finishing highschool with a bunch of apathetic Lefties, so bear with me...

[Anonymous]

"Frankly, I'm thinking about following a friend's example, cutting my land line, and going completely cellular."

don't do anything like this! such a proactive strategy will prevent the state from taking care of us like infants!

[Stevo]

Although this sends the conversation off its original track, going 100% cellular is absolutely the best decision I ever made. Telemarketing to cell phones is always illegal, as well it should be since the customer pays for every minute they use. I give my phone number away with reckless abandon now -- organizations can sell it all they want, but auto-dialers can't dial it!

Personally, I endorse this idea for everyone. Land lines have no actual reason to continue existing in homes at this point. They're more expensive and less flexible.

[sam]

slightly off the point, but when telemarketers call me there is always a slight delay before they start speaking....i say hello...silence...then they start jawjabbering. so i just hang up...they NEVER call back. OR vengefully you can play their game...act like a telemarketer before they get the chance...persistence is the key!!

[matt]

I will soon be starting a telecom company that supports broadcast messaging. This will not be random telemarketing. All people being called will have requested the calls from my customers (cable companies confirming appointments is a good example). I am definitely worried that many numbers called legitimately will also be in the do not call database. All it takes is one complaint and the federal (or any number of state) regulatory boards can come after me. Of course this law does not cover politicians and their calls? they are safe.

[Tommy_Grand]

"So if you're sitting down to dinner or at a movie, you don't have to answer the phone!"

The ringing itself is an intolerable intrusion. I wish I could disable the ringer on my home phone; but there are reasons why I cannot. I am considering switching to only a "cellular" phone. I may. But I worry that it is only a matter of time until tele-marketers begin calling "cell" #s

[Jim Walsh]

Curt Warner makes a great point: we are slaves to our telephones. Best thing I ever did was, last time I moved, NOT getting a regular phone. I just use my cell phone. If I don't want to be bothered, I turn it off. If it rings and I don't recognize the incoming number, it doesn't get answered.

Again, it seems to be the case of the government spending millions of our money solving "problems" that are no big deal to start with.

[Voom Voom]

Quick thoughts:

The federal government needs to deregulate telecommunications -- not add more regulation, no matter how annoying telemarketers are.

Going cellular is cool. Been landline-less for two years now. Have missed occasional important calls because of the inherent unreliability of Sprint PCS, but otherwise it's been a blast.

[Anonymous]

This is a disgrace.

[Ron Hardin]

My phone hasn't rung for years. I turned off the ringer and it stays that way. It's very peaceful.

[Curt Warner]

There are a couple of admittedly minor consequences to going only cellular, as I discovered. One is that if your apartment uses an intercom system through (land line) phones, you can't buzz somebody in. The other is that Pizza Hut et al won't deliver to your apartment if you don't have a non-cell phone.

[Anonymous]

Curt,

The apartement "enter-phone" was one of my concerns when making the switch to cellular-only. Fortunately, to the system at my place, the type of phone used by the resident makes no difference (not necessarily true for everyone).

The bonus is, I no longer have to take my building keys with me when I go out. I just carry my cell phone, call myself from the front door and buzz myself in.

And since I've gone cellular, I've yet to get a telemarketing call. Not that this was a problem before. My standard response to telemarketers was to immediatly, and politely informn the caller that I was not interested. If they continued, I'd just as politely ask them to hold for a second, while I left the phone off the hook and went about my business. The beeping on the line would let me know when they'd given up on waiting for me to return.

[Kevin Carson]

Just off hand, I'd say this is a form of class legislation. Obviously, you can't make it an offense for EVERYONE to call someone on his phone without prior permission. So you have to set up a special class of persons, telemarketers, with a (possibly arbitrary) definition, who are not allowed to do it.

If the principle of trespassing were applied in an analogous manner to real property, you could call the cops if somebody made an unsolicited door-knock to ask if you wanted your grass cut or your house number painted on the curb. And I've made some money doing this in the past, myself.

But although I disagree with the law in principle, it's pretty low on my list of things to get morally outraged about. I hate telemarketers. It's kind of like Martha Stewart: what she's accused of probably shouldn't even be a crime; but if the State is going to unjustly persecute someone, it might as well be her.

[Gilbert Martin]

My state already has a do not call list and I'm on it so I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Some here have advised going cellular or using caller ID to combat telemarketers. I have a cheaper way - I just use an answering maching to screen all my calls. If it's someone I want to talk to starts to leave a message, I'll pick up.
Most telemarketers hang up immediately when they get an answering machine anyway.

[Paul B]

Julian -- Your analogy to private property with a "no trespassing" sign doesn't work. The difference is that when you post the sign, YOU are the one taking action to prevent trespassing, which you then must back up (usually with some form of self-help or private legal action). It's essentially a private matter.

With the do-not-call list, you're asking the federal government (with all its badges and guns) to be your enforcer, at public expense.

A more apt analogy to private land would be that you're posting a "no trespassing" on your property along with a guard house staffed by a 24-hour policeman who promptly shoots anyone who disobeys the sign.

[Tommy_Grand]

Paul B - you are wrong. The government is not going to enforce the no-call list unless you notify it of the violation. Right or wrong, this is exactly the case with government enforcement of property trespass. They trespass, you call the cops.

You can argue against both or neither, but the situations are analogous.

[Anonymous]

From Anon:

"The bonus is, I no longer have to take my building keys with me when I go out. I just carry my cell phone, call myself from the front door and buzz myself in."

Boy, you must have a good cell-phone service company, or you have a van to sleep in. What's your plan at 1 A next winter when you need to get in, and, oops, no signal ;-}
I guess then just use the key that is stuck into the windowsill for emergencies (shhhh, well we don't know where you live at least.)

I'm also mobile-only (been for the last year). But, who says you can't turn the damn ringer off of any phone? If it doesn't have a switch, unplug the mofo, and plug it in when you're ready to make a call.

I agree with those that think the US government should not be involved with this (or almost anything else, for that matter!)

[Jimmy Antley]

Don't you hate people with no name. Last post was me, forgot to fill in the two textboxes up top.

[Eddie]

I did pay the phone company so I could have a phone for my use not to provide telemarketers with an advertising medium. If telemarketers would like to subsidize my telephone then they can call as much as they want. I now have cellular and internet phones and save lots of cash with no telemarketers. SIP internet phones are here, regular landlines are dead, check it out and you will want a cisco ata188 or similar.

[Kevin]

Did you see who is exempt? Banks and phone companies! Probably the two biggest junk-call industries in the world. This is the feds' idea of eliminating "most" unwanted calls. I get more pitches for long distance and credit cards than anything else. This little piece of self-congratulatory legislation will accomplish very little of what it intends to do.

[S.B. Crep]

"SIP internet phones are here, regular landlines are dead."

Right. And check out Cisco's tata77 ball-and-chain that goes with it!

What you do is, you secure one end of the chain to the base of the monitor and the other end around your left ankle.

Lunch? Supper? Hey, my desk is big enough to hold mouse pads AND dinner plates.
Barbeque? Well heck, I can do that right next to my printer here. And my chair is a lazyboy (heh-heh) so sleeping in front of my new "phone" is no problem either, when it rings.

My mom's tied up that way, too. And so are my dad, and my teenage sister.

We're happy.

(Now if I could only HEAR what my callers were saying, I'd be OK.)

[Hank]

A more apt analogy to private land would be posting a "No Trespassing" sign on your property, and rigging up several shotgun boobie traps that blasts 'em away when they trip the wires.

(No expensive guard house staffed by 24-hour policemen required.)

[C.R. Edulouz]

Thousands Sign Up for Anti-Telemarketing List!

WASHINGTON -- Thousands of Americans signed up Friday on a "do not call list" that will prevent telemarketers from bothering them at home. (Yeah, right.)

Eager Americans rushed to place their home phone numbers on the FTC's list, shortly after President Bush launched the measure in a White House ceremony. (Idiots!)

By noon the list had grown to 370,000 and the Web site was receiving 1,000 hits per second. Bush said, the do-not-call list should now help Americans enjoy their private time without unwanted interruptions. (Fat chance.)

[Herdie Ewe]

Hey, what a neat idea! Where can I go to put my house on a "Private Property, No Trespassing" list?

[Anonymous]

"I no longer have to take my building keys with me when I go out. I just carry my cell phone, call myself from the front door and buzz myself in."

Neat! That's like buying theater tickets to your own home for 39 cents a pop.

[overheard]

-- "I'll cut my land line, and am going completely cellular."

-- "Going cellular is cool. Been landline-less for two years now."

-- "Going 100% cellular is absolutely the best decision I ever made. "

(Yo, Vinnie, look at 'em! They don't even realize that cell phones have BIG EARS ... about the size of a dish antenna.)

(Shhh! Billy, be quiet. Let'em go ahead. Let 'em go all-cell. The world is happily listening in. Just don't tell anyone.)

(Yeah, I guess you're right, Vinnie, I won't.
Havin' too much fun hearing about their girl friends, snatching card numbers, and lotsa other numbers! Hee-hee!)

[roberto]

Any lawyers out there?? What is considered a telemarketer?? Do they have to actually make a sales pitch?? What if they give you information and ask you to call another number, is that call considered telemarketing?? What if they make believe the call is a survey and make a very subtle sales pitch?? I understand political campaigns and charities are exempt. How about if I'm selling aluminum siding and agree to contribute $1 from the sale to the Salvation Army?? What if the call originates from a call center in India?? I just think these guys are going to find some way around this, or they'll try to get the courts to rule it unconstitutional.

[Plutarck]

Eh, so far as I know about it it simply doesn't bother me; in the grand scheme of things the federal government could just outlaw damn land-line phones and its effects on society wouldn't be particularly agreegious. I myself just don't give much value to the things here entailed, so far as I know them - except that I hate the FCC, and as such anything that they do is highly suspect.

Just too much else to care about to get me riled up on this one, barring some far more intrusive and extreme effects of it.

[Plutarck]

I will now admit my spelling today has been truly "agreegious", hasn't it? Yeck.

[Eddie]

"What you do is, you secure one end of the chain to the base of the monitor and the other end around your left ankle"

And that would be different from what? He says with a web enabled cell phone with gps tracking snug in his pocket. Coming soon to a belt clip near you.

[C. S.]

I would like to point out two things that I don't think were mentioned, apologies if I'm repeating someone's ideas.

1) The original poster's analogy with "No Trespassing" signs doesn't quite work, since the sign is bought and administered (displayed) at the expense of the property owner, while the Federal "do not call" registry is funded partially by my tax dollars (against my will) and is administered by an FTC (that exists against my will.)

2) Ask yourself this question: If such a thing was wanted so desperately (and over 600,000 people have evidently signed up for it), why did phone companies not offer this as a service with an associated monthly fee? Perhaps there were political reasons (regulations or an agreement between phone companies and the FTC?) Could this be yet another case of the government creating a problem and later stepping in with a (sure to be expensive, and possibly requiring an expansion of Federal power) solution to make themselves look like big heroes?

[Touma D]

C.S. -- Ding ding ding! We had to wait 'til midnight, but somebody nailed it.

The thing that's wrong with the "Do Not Call" registry is that it's run by the federal government. There's no need to make it any more complex than that, or try to draw convoluted analogies.

I'm having my doubts about this "Julian Sanchez" character who has popped up here at Reason. Muddy thinking from this cat.

[Shaun]

Hmmm... well, that it would be done better if instituted privately goes without saying. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is not a legitimate (or at least constitutional) function of government. I think Julian's argument that this falls square under the interstate commerce clause is legitimate.

I also suspect that the reason that this was not instituted as a paid option from the phone companies earlier has something to do with the exemption for politicians from these regulations.

[Croesus]

The List is apparently a hit. I think that's enough for me.

[Tron]

Mr. Not, get an answering machine. SCREEN your calls. (Hello!)

[not]

Tron:
so, you want me to screen my business calls with an answering machine?

I'm sure my management staff and customers would completely understand.

Give me a freakin break.

[not]

i have to say, as a telecommuter, that telemarketers cost me and my company money every day. looking at the caller id doesn't cut it, my headquarters and most telemarketers show up as "unknown". my cell bill would be incredibly high if i was to go that route only. also, what's the difference in telemarketers not being able to call cells? isn't that just a form of do-not-call?

i am assuming that most of you work, and perhaps at your work you aren't forced to stop and reply to a sales pitch (most notably one that has nothing to do with your line of work). if you were, you would understand it's more than an annoyance, it hinders you earning a living.

i agree with the anologies of trespassing, and with the one saying it's similar to someone turning off your electricity until you reply to them. this has been legal harassment for years, and it's about time it ends.

[not]

tron,

if you made any sense, perhaps this list wouldn't exist...but it does, which means that your opinion is a dribble of fish piss in an ocean of reason.

[Tron]

"I'm sure my management staff and customers would completely understand."

Sure they would. Welcome to 2003, where EVERYONE is used to those things by now.

What, you haven't had to "Press 1 for Tech Support," "Press 2 for Customer Service" before? You've never had to listen to glorious music-on-hold? (Not that YOU would do that to your clients, of course. Music, that is.)

If you haven't, and you're not familiar with dial-pad fests, we need to get you "Back to The Future from 1955" and get you up to speed, so you can give US a freakin break.

Voicemail is as common nowadays as blogs and email. You should know that. You're here.

Besides, you can always inform your management staff and customers that you are screening your calls (thanks to telemarketers) and I'm sure they'll be able to relate. Tell them, when you hear their voice, you'll pick up.

Works for me.
Not a problem.

[JS]

An interesting question is: does registering in the "do not call" registry provide the federal goverment with any information it doesn't already have on you? On balance I would say: not much. It is true that if you register online, government databases will now contain a linkage between your email and phone number or several phone numbers to each other and to your email. They could also link to your IP but probably don't. But most of this linkage could surely be provided by any internet service provider, and perhaps legally under existing legistlation such as the Patriot Act. It just makes it so much easier when you volunteer it though. However, you could use an anonymous email account to register.

For the record, I don't believe the government would actually DO much harm even if it had such information. The government is simply not a total police state yet, Ashcroft and very troubling consitutional violations notwithstanding. I think the issue is interesting to consider out of principle rather than paranoia.

That said, I do hate telemarketers and have little problem with regulating them. Whether it will do much good is another matter. The legistlation has A LOT of loopholes. Charities, politicians, and surveys are exempt as well as businesses you have done business with in the last 18 months (hint: your phone company). I'd estimate that is at least 50% of the total telemarketing calls - does anyone have real data on what percentage it actually is?

[pianist]

JS, you amuse me so -- in a creepy sort of way.

"It just makes it so much easier when you volunteer it though."

Precisely! Easier for THEM. And they love it. The more "volunteers" a command-and-control bureaucracy can get, the better.

"I don't believe the government would actually DO much harm even if it had such information. The government is simply not a total police state yet ..."

Is that by any chance a direct quote from a Jewish meeting, somewhere in Central Europe, circa 1934?

[Anonymous]

Good to see you responding and reacting to "fish-piss dribble." Must be worth quite a bit for you to do so.

[Tron]

OK, Mr. Not, stay where you are, back in the stone age. I don't really care all that much. Let success in business and in life go to those who act successfully.

[007]

Hey, Tron, apparently "Mr. Not" wants to do his moniker justice. Let him keep thinking and behaving negatively like that and see how far he'll get in life.

(Just remember what happened to "Dr.No" ...)

[Brady]

regarding the possible reason that the phone companies did not self-regulate, despite home consumer demand:

how much money did the phone companies make from the large amounts of calls being placed by the telemarketers? surely they banked off of the large number of outgoing phone lines and long distance bills these companies incurred while in business. money talks.

just a thought.

[SBC rep]

THIS IS SO STUPD!

"Simply record the three-tone sound that plays when your phone reaches a disconnected line (ba-dum-dum, "This line has been disconnected or is out of service " etc.) and record it as the first sound on your answering machine. The automated calling systems will pick up your number, then add you to their "disconnected" lists when they hear the tone. Fairly soon you won't be getting telemarketing calls."

If you record it as the first sound on your answering machine, then all your other LEGITIMATE callers will also hear it, and you'll never get another call from ANYONE, moron!

[Thornwell Simons]

I agree with the original post. A more interesting question is whether or not a roughly libertarian argument can be made, along the same lines, in favor of some organization approximating some of the roles of the FDA.

[Thornwell Simons]

arg! forgot to mention one thing. There is a private way to deal with telemarketers, however. Simply record the three-tone sound that plays when your phone reaches a disconnected line (ba-dum-dum, "This line has been disconnected or is out of service " etc.) and record it as the first sound on your answering machine. The automated calling systems will pick up your number, then add you to their "disconnected" lists when they hear the tone. Fairly soon you won't be getting telemarketing calls.

[Anonymous]

julian's position:

it is ok for the goverment to solve an irrevelent problem that is not mandated by the constitution (stoping telemarketers, usually poor people trying to make a buck)

but it is not ok for the goverment to solve a real problem that is mandated by the constitution (natl defense)

makes sense

[not]

I dont' see how my comments were negative when i was the one getting flamed for being for the do-not-call list. saying to "stay in 1955" seemed a just a little unprofessional to me. i wasn't even born in '55. also, i have to say that there was supposed to be a bit of humor in my statement, anyways...touchy, touchy.

you have no idea of my success, and i must laugh at you questioning it.

i don't have to stay in the stone age, tron, because as you keep ignoring the do-not-call list EXISTS, whether you like it or not. so, fortunately for me, i live in today's reality.

[bomb bomb]

Originally I thought that this was a cool idea. Now I am pretty sure it sucks a bunch. When I think back on all the telemarketing calls that I have gotten, I think that they would fallen under the exemptions that are in the law.

It makes me a tad bit nervous that the gubmint is gonna run this. We know they are going to screw this list up, and companies that cheat, and there will be many, won't get fined enough for them to stop.

I would like to share a something with you though. If you get a call you do not want, just tell 'em they sound hot, and ask the caller, "What are you wearing?" They should hang up in record time. And if they don't, Free Phone Sex!

It has worked for me. It will work for you 😉

[Jim]

Uh, SBC rep & others, this technology is called the 'Telezapper'. I've got one. I still get calls because I start talking afterwards. The autodialers have hung up by then. However I've read that some companies have figured a way around them (most notably the damnable phone companies who I am usually trying to avoid) and bill collectors.

Not sure there's a real good legislative solution to this, in terms of rights, but I disagree with Julian's notion that rights privately negotiated are 'disaggerable' - you don't sign up for phone service or internet service with an implicit right that no one you don't wish to talk to will call or email you. If you rent your apartment, and the apartment manager put in the lease that it was OK for certain people, even salesmen, to enter your apartment without your consent, then that would still not be trespass. You'd just be a dumbass for signing such a lease (or the landlord would soon be out of business for being a dumbass and not including a reasonable expected right of privacy included in the services he offers). The only reason such rights may be 'non-disaggreable' is because of laws on the books refecting what is or is not allowed in private contract.

[O'Reily]

OK, Jim, we'll let you have the last word. But next time, please run your posts through a spell-checker, will you?

"disaggreable'" (Grrr!)

[minnie]

i love only having a cell phone. unfortunatly according to the patriot act i cant fucking get a credit card unless i have a landline. how fucked up is that?