Call Blocking

The federal do-not-call list may be in trouble, but its state-level counterparts are still in place.

Comments

[Joe Dokes]

We have had a state wide do-not-call list in California, and it WORKS. Everytime you receive a marketing call, you merely ask to be placed on the do not call list. It takes a couple of months but by month three the calls dry up. Now we only get about 1 call a month. The silence is wonderful. At one point we were recieving four or more call per day.

I strongly believe that your home should be a sanctuary from the outside world. For this reason I support Do not Call and Do not Spam laws.

For the issue of Freedom of Speech. Keep in mind that no right is absolute. You do not have the right to use a bull horn in my driveway at 3:00 am. Nor do you have the right to force your way into my home to sell me something. So it seems consistent that I have the right to forbid you from calling me.

Further, if one values their time then an unwanted call is a definite cost and actually deprives a person of valuable property. Something, I believe all libertarians would want to preserve.

Regards

Joe

[StMack]

Uh, Joe

You seem a little confused. The right to free speech protected (not granted) by the first amendment is a protection of the content of speech. In other words I have the right to sit at my desk, read your post and say "what an idiot." I do not have the right to shout it into a bullhorn in your driveway at 3:00 am.

Your assertion that libertarians would want to preserve the valuable property of their time and the sanctuary of their home is correct. Your assumption that they would want the government to do it is bizarre.

[Curt Warner]

State do-not-call lists aren't fair, though. In Indiana (where I live), newspapers and police benevolent organizations, at the very least, are exempt. That ain't right.

Plus, Joe, you can make your home a sanctuary. Just don't answer the phone, or turn off the ringer, and whatnot.

[Joe Dokes]

I know this is a Libertarian website but even hardcore libertarians would have to agree that at least in an ideal world the government is by its nature instituted to protect rights.

For example, property rights. Yes, as an individual you have the right to protect your property. And indeed you should. But we in our communities frequently call upon the government to protect our property rights. Think fire, and Police. Do you wish to live in a society in which only YOU are responsible for protecting your rights? Can you say Anarchy?

Personally I am a classical liberal, I want the government to protect my Life, Liberty, and Property. (incidently I also retain the right to protect the above, the right I give up is the right to act as judge in cases where I have been wronged, this if the sole pervue of a Jury) I consider intrusive calls by telemarketers to be vilolation of my right to privacy, and just as importantly my right to property. Therefore there is nothing bizarre about wanting the government to protect my rights. (importantly if they don't then I have the right to alter the government).

As for Curt, If a state do not call list is unfair, work to change the law.

My basic argument is this: 1) State do not call lists work. 2) They do not violate anyone's right to Free Speech. 3) They protect people's right to a. be left alone, b. privacy and most importantly c. property rights.

Turning off the ringer, or in the case of SPAM email deleting it is not an answer because it reduces the value of my property. ie my phone my computer.

Regards

Joe

[Larry Ruane]

I don't think receiving a phone call, even from a telemarketer, can reasonably be considered an invasion of property. When you sign up for phone service, you are aware that the nature of the service is that anyone anywhere in the world can make your phone ring. If you don't like that, you have two options:

(1) You can not sign up for phone service.

(2) You can persuade your phone company (or start your own phone company) to modify their service, such as implementing "white lists" (phone numbers that are allowed to call your phone) or caller self-selection (the caller hears a recording saying that this number does not accept solicitations; please press 1 if you are not a solicitor, and then your call goes through).

There is even a simple solution that does not involve new technology. Each phone company can compile a do-not-call list of its own customers, and share these with other phone companies. The contract a phone company signs with each of its customers could say that if you are a telemarketer, you must abide by these DNC lists, otherwise you will be dropped as a customer. Any pair of phone companies have an incentive to cooperate in this way because they will both attract more customers.

The only problem might be if government anti-trust bureaucrats prohibit this kind of "collusion" -- in which case, the answer is to get rid of these stupid laws.

[Anonymous]

Joe, one more point; you say:

"Turning off the ringer, or in the case of SPAM email deleting it is not an answer because it reduces the value of my property. ie my phone my computer."

You do not have a right to the VALUE of your property, only a right against physical invasion of your property. For an excellent explanation of this, listen to Hans Hoppe (about half-way through this lecture):

http://www.mises.org/audio.asp
(search for "Law and Economics" within that page)

[Joe Dokes]

Unfortunately, your solution is no solution at all. Just look at how well SPAM blockers work or don't work as the case may be.

The problem with SPAM and Telemarketers is that they ruin the market. For example, you argue, "don't use a phone." If that doesn't reduce my rights then what does? In order to have privacy and not waste my valuable time, I must forgo what is considered a necessity by a majority of Americans. Thus, going without is really not an option.

You then argue that the market will create solutions to your problem. Unfortunately, that can not occur because 1. the phone companies themselves profit from the telemarketers and 2. the cure would be worse than the disease.

How? Well imagine all the time, effort you would need to go through just establish a list and adequately maintain it. Imagine if you wished to do anytype of business over the phone. Just getting a quote from four or five general contractors would require considerable effort to add the business to your list and then delete them.

All this effort would accomplish two things. One, it would further reduce the value of your phone, thus depriving you of valuable property. Second, it probably wouldn't work because telemarketers would figure out ways around the filter as they frequently do with the email blockers.

Under a legal system of do not call, the amount of time and effort is virtually nill. Add your name to your list, wait three months and the calls stop. Further, you retain all the value in your phone.

Final Argument, let's say that telemarketers began calling cell phone numbers. Clearly since the cell phone pays for the incoming call you would have to agree that the telemarketer is taking something of value and thus the force of the law could be used to stop them. My cell phone costs me about 7 cents a minute. When I work as a consultant I charge $60.00 an hour. (I know I am pretty cheap) thus in some respects each minute I spend on the phone with a telemarketer has an opportunity cost of a dollar. This is not an insignigicant amount.

Regards

Joe

[Xrlq]

The first judge's "Gee, I don't think Congress meant to authorize this" suit is no threat to the states or, given Congress' lightning-speed response, to the FTC. But if yesterday's ruling sticks, in which the second judge ruled that do-not-call lists violate the God-given First Amendment right of telespammers to harass people who have asked to be left alone, I don't see how this could be any less of a problem for the state lists.

[Gary Halpin]

While the majority of folks simply hang up or screen the calls with caller ID (both private solutions), there are some who need the government to help I guess (this would include Joe). But what Joe is not taking into account is because this small majority can't solve the problem, we ALL have to chip and and help him pay for it (that would be taxes). Secondly, what makes you think the government's solution will be a stop all. You even said you still get one or two calls. Are you going to call the FBI and who knows, spend some time in court to testify against these evil folks? That certainly sounds like more than 7 cents per minute. But here's the best solution -- have your kid answer the phone.

[Joe Dokes]

What cost?

In California each telemarketer keeps a list which you are added to when you asked to be placed on the list. The cost in California is borne almost entirely by the industry itself.

For the nation-wide list the cost would or will be tiny and again telemarketers could be required to pay to for updates to the list which would cover the costs.

The point I am making is that in my system, the telemarketers are required to pay for all the costs associated with their business. Under your plans the private individual bears the brunt of the cost. i.e. the cost of an answering maching, caller id etc. I believe that telespammers as well as spammers should a pay the full cost of their doing business. Certainly libertarians don't want to help pay the costs of telemarketing do you? In my mind, part of the Libertarian Philosophy is requireing people to pay their own way. Pay all the costs associated with their activities. For example, a libertarian would argue that you can do anything you want to with your property, but if you negatively impact your neighbors he probably would have the right to sue for compensation. I strongly believe that telespammers (thanks xriq) do NOT pay for the costs associated with their business, therefore they should be forced to.

As for being a small majority, I'll assume you meant small minority, I would beg to differ. Watch the telephone lines flood on an AM talk show when telemarketing comes up. Further, fifty million American Signed up for the do not call list. That is a hell of a lot more than a small minority.

Further, I can not repeat enough how nice it is for a home to be quiet. Merely the ringing of a phone at dinner is disruptive. With the do not call, even this trifle annoyance is GONE. The only time the phone rings in my house is when it is for me.

Finally, I would love to have my daughter answer the phone, but she is only 23 mos. old and while she'll talk up storm on a fake phone for some odd reason if their is a live person (i.e. grandma) on the other end she won't say a word. Must be a toddler thing.

Regards

Joe

[Gary Halpin]

There's no such thing as a free lunch Joe. And if you think it won't end up costing us more in taxes or higher priced goods, then you need to catch up on Economics 101.

I did mean minority, so thanks for that correction. But 50 million people signed up for it? That seems high, but I'll take your word on it. But when it's FREE, it's easy to get a lot of folks signing up because the majority (and I mean majority as in 99%) don't understand my first line above or anything about economics.

We're not on any no call list and rarely get calls. Maybe I'm lucky or maybe they no I have no money or maybe they're tired of me sitting the phone on the counter and going back to dinner.

[Larry Ruane]

Joe, in your reply to me (5:59 pm), you are giving me utilitarian arguments, which are not the correct bases for law. The purpose of the law is justice, not wealth maximization (such as preventing you from wasting your valuable time). What we really have to keep our eyes on is property rights -- who owns (controls) what property, and what constitutes a violation.

Therefore, the question is whether an unwanted phone call is a violation of your property rights. I don't see how it can possibly be. There are 3 or 4 parties involved here. There is the caller, his phone company, your phone company (if it is different), and you. Each party has certain well-defined property. The caller and you own your respective phones. The phone companies own the transmission equipment. There is no allegation here that the caller is invading either phone companies' equipment, or your phone. The caller is not breaking into the phone company, or your home. The caller is using the system exactly as it was designed to be used. I don't see how the call can constitute a property violation based merely on your evaluation of the content of the call.

Even the cell phone case you mentioned cannot possibly be a property rights violation, because that's just simply how the cell phone system works. When you sign up, you understand that you might get an unwanted call -- but you sign up anyway.

I'd like to contrast an unwanted call with a real violation of property rights, such as someone driving his car into your house. You did not set your house up as a target to be driven through! You had no expectation of that happening! But when you sign up for phone service, you are saying, in effect, cool, anyone in the world can call this very phone! That is the purpose of having the phone. So when it actually happens, how can it be a property rights violations?

Now let me address some practical points. Telemarketer have ways to find out whether a number belongs to a cell phone. Any telemarketer who calls a cell phone is just asking for hatred, which is why it almost never happens. Furthermore, to promote customer goodwill, most if not all cell phone companies credit you for unsolicited calls; alas, however, your wasted time cannot be refunded.

You explained in detail why maintaining a "white list" is a lot of work, and you have a point there; it is not very practical. But you did not address my other suggestion that the phone companies create and swap do not call lists with each other. (I don't know why they don't already do that, but as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the government is the culprit here.) Yes, they do make money from telemarketers, but they make far more money from regular home customers who hate to be bothered by telemarketing calls.

Also, by the way, email spam can be handled by the free market, see SpamArrest.com for just one of many examples. These things really do work.

One final comment. After my posting that pointed out that you don't have a right to the value of your property (that was me, by the way, I forgot to sign it), you again argued based on diminished value of your phone. To be intellectually honest, you need to address my point before using it again in your argument.

[matt]

I'm not a fan of any do-not-call lists. Like most other supposed problems our government says it can fix, I think the federal list would be a huge waste of time, not to mention the fact that it seems completely unconstitutional. But if states want to pass their own do-not-call lists, as goofy as i think they are, I don't think there's any way for telemarketers (or anyone else for that matter) to stop them.

[kevrob]

A person can post his property with a "no solicitors" sign, and not respecting it can get you arrested for trespass. A no call list, or a no spam list, is an equivalent for phone numbers and e-mail addresses. Unfortunately telephony is heavily regulated, with at least some of the system (the rboc/baby bell part) still operating under the old mode of government-coddled monopoly. I would prefer if DNC lists could be privately run, and have the same force as posting your property. A state or federal sponsored list is less to my liking, much as vouchers aren't as good as full school privatization. Still, I'm for taking some step.

Kevin

[tzs]

Why can't we consumers start charging telespammers for our time? I'd be willing to suffer through their spiel if I could charge them my consulting rates ($150/hr or portion thereof.)

If you don't want to pay for the privilege of getting my opinion, then don't call my phone.

[Larry Ruane]

Kevin, you make a good point. To the extent the phone companies are controlled (regulated) by the government, then having the government set up and run the list is appropriate. It's the same as the argument (which I agree with) that because the government owns the roads, seat-belt laws do not violate anyone's rights.

But I am still of the opinion that if the entire phone system were privately owned and operated, and if (contrary to our intuition) the competitive phone service market did not provide some solution to this problem (that is, some way for people to prevent or indicate they don't want telemarketing calls) then an unwanted call would not properly be considered a property rights violation that requires government intervention.

Is there any argument with that position?

[Andrew Lynch]

Get this pathetic quote from no less than the FTC Chairman, excerpted from an MSNBC article today:

"I do not believe that our Constitution dictates such an illogical result," Muris said. "To the contrary, our Constitution allows consumers to choose not to receive commercial telemarketing calls."

It's nice to see that our highest-level appointed government officials have less understanding of the Constitution than junior-high students. And that's being generous.

Sickening.

[Andrew Lynch]

Sorry, Joe, your arguments don't hold up for one simple reason. The government's questionable protection in this instance violates equal protection under the law. On one hand, it protects you from private company solicitations, but doesn't protect you from campaigning politicians or the American Cancer Society, each seeking contributions. It's hypocritical, not to mention unconstitutional, to protect you from one form of phone call without protecting you from them all.

[Larry Ruane]

Kevin, it is also utopian to think that this government list will be effective. The calls will probably begin originating from outside the U.S., for example.

Besides the other reasons I've given, anyone reading REASON should be extremely hesitant to give the government power over yet another area of daily life. It is entirely predictable (and illustrated over and over again by history) that any power given to the government will sooner or later be abused. Initially, the new system may work well, and as intended -- while everyone is watching carefully.

But after a while, what do you think the government is going to do with its power to define who is a telemarketer and who is not? It's going to favor itself and its friends, obviously. (It's already happened, actually, see Andrew Lynch's post above, September 27, 12:15 AM.) This will also create a constituency for continuation and expansion of the program.

Is this what you really want? As a reader of a libertarian web site, I doubt it.

[kevrob]

Under a theoretically totally deregulated telephony system, I'd sign up with a telco that had, as part of its terms of service, a "respect our DNC list" clause. Other systems that wanted to interconnect would have to agree not to abuse the privilege by being a conduit for those who ignored DNC lists. Now, this is highly utopian, as we all know how well TOS serves to stop spam.

I'm no technical genius, but phone systems and the internet don't quite work the same. It might be easier to lock telespammers out than the e-mail kind.

Kevin

[Ken Chase]

In response to numerous questions about the 'Do Not Call' List and blocking unwanted calls, we are posting information about our latest release, the Privacy Call ID Screener

TECHNOLOGY TRIUMPHS OVER FTC'S "DO NOT CALL" LIST
New Caller ID Screener Allows Only 'Invited' Callers to Ring - Free of Fees

(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) Telemarketing companies and exempted groups may have found loopholes in the new National Do Not Call List, but telecom automation groundbreaker Bill Sasso of Digitone Communications thwarts them again with his latest invention, the Privacy Call ID Screener

A small, tabletop device designed for customers who subscribe to Caller ID, the Privacy Call ID Screener allows only 'Invited' callers
to ring their phone. All other callers are handled as the consumer chooses.

Although the device is customizable, its use is simple. Callers on the consumer's 'Invited' list ring through without interference, while
anonymous or unfamiliar callers are asked to identify themselves or leave a message, without ringing the phone. Callers on the consumer's
'Excluded' list cannot ring the phone or leave a message, including cell phone, out-of-state, and international callers.

"We call it 'Caller ID with attitude!'" says Sasso. "Now consumers can choose who can ring their phone, and when, without the limits and
extra monthly charges from your telephone service provider. Using the unit's Caller ID screen, it only takes a push of a button to add
callers to your 'Included' or 'Excluded' list. And, using the 'Wildcard' feature, the consumer can 'Invite' or 'Exclude' entire area codes, prefixes or number sets. With the ID Screener, exemptions like those to the National 'Do Not Call' List simply do not exist."

A snap to install, the Privacy Call ID Screener prevents telemarketing calls, predictive dialers, misdialed numbers, hang-up calls, false
faxes, pollsters, political organizations, exes, creditors and anyone else the consumer doesn't want to talk to ... ever again.

Additional benefits include a call-forwarding feature that, on a single line, seamlessly connects 'Invited' callers to a cell phone or
alternate location, as well as a 'Do Not Disturb' mode. This feature prevents all callers from ringing the phone during set hours, such as
bedtime and study time, either on a one-time or daily basis.

"The ID Screener is particularly useful for people who keep unusual hours, such as those working the graveyard or swing shifts," says
Sasso. "During 'Do Not Disturb' hours, 'Invited' callers can leave a message, but the phone will not ring, ensuring total privacy." A
secret emergency code is provided in case of emergencies.

The Privacy Call ID Screener is the latest addition to the Privacy Call series, designed to help residential consumers and business
owners better manage their telephone communications and reduce monthly telephone charges. Consisting of six different models, Privacy Call Series products are available at the Privacy Call website http://www.Privacy-Call.com or by calling [phone].

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This sounds a great deal to me like the old Privcode machine, which was popular back in the 1970's. It was
attached to the phone line, and was sensitive enough to go off hook at the slightest hint of a change in voltage, so the phones seldom if
ever actually rang. Instead, this machine -- the Privcode -- would announce its intentions and demand that the caller enter or speak his
Privcode ID number (actually, it was referred to as the 'extension' number desired by the caller. The proper three digit 'extension'allowed the phones to ring. Otherwise, the caller got transferred to an answering machine. Really a great device, and manufactured in those
days by IMM (International Mobile Machines) of Bala Cynwyd, PA. It is no longer available I don't think. Perhaps this new machine which
Ken Chase describes is a good replacement. PAT]

[Eisenberg Jenny]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://cheap-web-hosting.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 09:57:00
Ethics is not necessarily the handmaiden of theology.