December 26, 2004

"I remember getting a hard sell. A telemarketer told me 'C'mon, can't you spare $20? How about $10? These people are really counting on you.'

"They think they're above the law."

Diana Mey, a mother of three from Wheeling, WV, and an anti-telemarketing pioneer, commenting about the charity telemarketing call that pushed her "over the edge." She later filed suit against the telemarketer in small claims court and won. She has testified at federal hearings and is credited with helping get federal and state Do-Not-Call telemarketing laws adopted.

From Newsday.com, Telemarketers take up to 90 percent cut in charitable donations, December 24, 2004. Ms. Mey can be reached via her web site at: www.dianamey.com.

CATS Comment: Telemarketers still think that they are above the law. With scarce enforcement by authorities, is it any wonder that they feel that way?

People like Diana Mey, who use the "private right of action" clause in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to take the tele-scum to court help everyone have a happy (and quiet) New Year. You go girl!

December 19, 2004

"They've called me at home a couple of times, although they didn't know that I was the sheriff It's made for some interesting conversations.

"As far as I know, no law enforcement family in Iowa has ever received a death benefit or a college scholarship from ADSA [American Deputy Sheriff's Association]. And they've only purchased 15 vests for area law enforcement agencies in the last seven years."

Louisa County Iowa Sheriff, Curt Braby, commenting on the questionable telephone fund-raising tactics used by the American Deputy Sheriff's Association, an out-of-state charitable organization that has apparently deceived many Iowa residents.

Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller, has alleged that ADSA and its telemarketers violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act and ultimately bilked Iowans out of more than $987,000 from 2001 to 2004.

Out of that amount, Miller alleged that only $3,900, or under four-tenths of one percent, has actually been committed to assist local law enforcement agencies.

Miller asked the Des Moines-based court to issue a permanent injunction preventing ADSA from making any misrepresentations in phone solicitations about the location of the caller, whether the caller is in law enforcement or whether donations will be used by local law enforcement agencies.

The lawsuit also asks the court to order the defendants to pay up to $40,000 for each violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and $5,000 for each violation against older Iowans.

From the Muscatine (Iowa) Journal, Local sheriffs confirm alleged deceptive telemarketing techniques, December 17, 2004. Sheriff Barby can be reached at: (319) 523-4371

CATS Comment: Fraud is a crime in Iowa. As the chief law enforcement officer of the State, Attorney General Miller should order the arrest of the person(s) involved in this fraud.

The telemarketers that would be arrested would have the right to remain silent. We here at CATS wish they would do just that.

December 12, 2004

"Jill Beyer,

Before you are rude to another telemarketer, you should keep in mind that he or she has your phone number and your address.

Many of them live in your own state and most don't give a (expletive)!

So, Ms. Beyer, the next time a telemarketer calls and you don't want to be bothered, a simple "not interested" will do.

Your son or daughter or next-door neighbor's daughter could very well be a telemarketer. A handicapped, wheelchair-bound person could be a telemarketer. A biker or ex-con is more likely to be a telemarketer. You really, really shouldn't (expletive) with them!"

From a letter sent by an unknown telemarketer to Ms. Jill Beyer, a resident of Waterford Township, Michigan. Ms. Beyer said she received the letter about one week after she refused to donate money in a recent call from a telemarketer. The letter arrived postmarked from El Paso, Texas. Currently the El Paso Police Department is reportedly taking the threat seriously and are searching for the person who sent the letter. From NBC 10's (WCAU, Philadelphia) web site, Woman Gets Threatening Letter After Hanging Up On Telemarketer, El Paso Police Investigating Phone Call, December 8, 2004.

CATS Comment: Telemarketers often tell potential advertisers that telemarketing is better than traditional advertising because unlike print ads or TV, telemarketing is one-to-one advertising and has the "personal touch." Well, in this case, it doesn't get any more personal than this!

We here at CATS find it interesting how so many companies claim in their privacy policies that they maintain "physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards," yet they will rent your personal information to a telemarketing company that may hire ex-felons, or worse yet, may employ inmates as a "work rehabilitation" project.

Yes, it's that "personal touch" that sets the telemarketing industry, as an advertising medium, way above the rest!

December 5, 2004

"In its solicitation, the company [Telephone Protection Agency, Inc.] told an Oklahoma City woman they knew she had signed up for the Don’t Call program and, for an additional fee, their service could eliminate all telemarketing calls. The consumer declined the offer, but found on her next bank statement that the company had debited her account $99.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, commenting on his office's efforts to stop a company from further defrauding Oklahomans by using the Don’t Call program as bait for its telephone solicitations. Edmondson asked Oklahoma County District Court for a permanent injunction against Telephone Protection Agency, Inc. of Hickory, N.C. Edmondson is accusing the company of illegally transferring $99 from a consumer’s bank account and falsely implying that it is associated with the attorney general’s office. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently took action against the company as well.

From a press release by the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, Edmondson Seeks Injunction Against Telemarketer, October 8, 2002. Mr. Edmondson can be reached via the Oklahoma Attorney General's office at: (405) 521-3921.

CATS Comment: Although the State of Oklahoma took action against Telephone Protection Agency Inc. in October of 2002, the FTC waited until April of 2004 to take action against them. So for a year and a half, a commercial company was claiming to protect consumers but in reality, was violating the law and defrauding consumers.

We at CATS have a question. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) was passed by Congress in 1991 and put into law in December of 1992. The law was hailed by then President Regan as a great act for consumers that did not want unsolicited phone calls. But history shows that the lack of enforcement by the FCC eventually made the law worthless. Now the FTC has a responsibility of enforcing the the National "Do-Not-Call" list, which is part of the new Telephone Sales Rule (TSR).

Our question is quite simple. Given the fact that the FTC has over 100,000 complaints of violations of the National "Do-Not-Call" list rules, yet has only gone after a handful of companies to date, will the lack of enforcement of this aspect of the TSR eventually doom it to failure like the TCPA? We think the answer to the question is "YES."
Correction: Our information statement should have said: "The law was hailed by then President Bush (Sr.) as a great act for consumers that did not want unsolicited phone calls." Regan's term ended in January, 1989. Our thanks to Naveen N. for pointing this out.

November 28, 2004

"It's incredibly inappropriate on the part of the postal service. It's clearly designed to mask the failure of the postal service to contain its own fraud."

Tim Searcy, CEO of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting about an advertising campaign by the U. S. Postal Inspection Service called "Dialing for dollars." The advertisements, which ran in USA Today, Reader's Digest, the AARP member magazine and the premiere re-issue of Life magazine, depict a smiling man wearing a headset underneath the headline, "You have the right to remain silent. He's hoping you don't."

The ad warns consumers that telemarketing fraud costs people millions of dollars yearly and that older people are most vulnerable. It presents advice on how consumers can protect themselves, including a toll-free number to call to register for the no-call list, as well as a free DVD. From DM News, Telemarketers Not Smiling Over Postal Inspectors Ad, November 15, 2004. Mr. Searcy can be reached via the ATA at: (317) 816-9336.

CATS Comment: Chill out Tim! Considering the statements that you have made in the past (like the one where you claimed that if the National "Do-Not-Call" list was put into law it would be "like an asteroid hitting the earth"), you definitely need a break. Pop some microwave popcorn, open a cold one, sit down in your easy chair and watch a rented DVD from the video store. May we suggest a title? How about "Boiler Room?

November 21, 2004

"New Jersey consumers should not have to live in fear and dread of the sound of a ringing phone at dinnertime just because ATA [American Teleservices Association] members don’t want to comply with the law, I fought long and hard for passage of the Do Not Call law and will continue the fight if it means protecting our residents from intrusive telemarketers."

New Jersey Acting Governor Richard J. Codey, commenting on an ATA petition filed with the FCC seeking to weaken New Jersey's ``Do Not Call'' law by asking federal regulators to bar the state from implementing certain provisions of its law.

New Jersey's "do not call" law requires telemarketers to register each year with the Division of Consumer Affairs and prohibits them from calling residents who are registered on the list. It imposes fines of up to $10,000 for first-time violators and up to $20,000 for subsequent offenses.

The law bans telemarketing calls between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. Solicitors also must state their name, company and reason for calling within 30 seconds.

From a press release from the Governor's office, Acting Governor Codey Urges FCC to Reject Attempts to Gut New Jersey’s Do Not Call Law, November 19, 2004. Acting New Jersey Governor Codey can be contacted at his office phone, (609) 292-6000.

CATS Comment: Way to go Gov! The FCC has been a miserable failure when it comes to consumer's rights. Hats off to you for protecting New Jersey consumers, in spite of federal failures. California's 'Governator' could learn a lot from your actions. CATS commends you.

November 14, 2004

"The chance that any violator will be caught is remote, as is the chance of being prosecuted. At least the FCC imposed a real penalty when it acted. For the FTC, the violator suffered only a loss of revenue that resulted from the violation. Gateway was no worse off for violating its privacy policy than if it had complied.

"This type of FTC privacy enforcement is a joke because it has no teeth. If the rare enforcement action doesn't hurt, then the deterrent effect is zilch and little has been accomplished. It’s as if a bank robber’s only penalty was that he had to give back the money he stole. Fourth, consumers got nothing in both cases. Consumers rarely get anything from federal administrative privacy actions. However, both agencies issued press releases patting themselves on the back."

Robert Gellman, a Washington-based privacy and information policy consultant and former chief counsel to the House subcommittee on information, justice, transportation and agriculture commenting to DM News on the lack of real enforcement of privacy laws when it comes to telemarketing. From DM News, FTC, FCC Differ on Privacy Enforcement, November 2, 2004. Mr. Gellman can be reached via e-mail at: rgellman@netacc.net.

CATS Comment: That's right folks. You get an unwanted, illegal telemarketing call. You send complaint letters to the FCC and FTC. With a bit of luck they may even investigate your complaint. They may even take some action. And if they do, they get the credit and you get nothing. Nice.

On the other hand, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act gives you, the consumer, a private right of action in a court of competent jurisdiction--usually small claims. No legal mumbo-jumbo, no attorneys allowed, just you, the telemarketer, and the judge. And at $500 per violation of the law, at least YOU get justice.

The American Teleservices Association represents the telemarketing industry. Their slogan is: "Opportunity is calling." We agree.

November 7, 2004

(First call)
"Now Sandy, I'm gonna call back one more time and if I get the answering machine one more time, I'm going to send an officer to your doorstep. So, I'm going to hang up and call back, and you'd better pick up this next time."

(Second call)
"Good job, Sandy. You just struck out, it's over, there will be a swat team on your doorstep in about five minutes."

An unknown telemarketer calling on behalf of the Utah Fraternal Order of Police, a non-profit organization that hired the Civic Development Group, a charity telemarketer, to make calls on their behalf.

According to KUTV, the Civic Development Group's lawyer sent a letter to the station saying that "there was an attempt to call Sandy back, but the call was disconnected because the equipment does not allow the operator to leave a voice mail on an answering machine." And "...the company's investigation to this point indicates the call was not originated by an employee or representative of the company."

From KUTV's web site, Gephardt Investigates: Police Telemarketing Threat, November, 4, 2004. Gephardt can be reached via e-mail at: gephardt@kutv2.com.

CATS Comment: There is no question that Bill Gephardt is one of the finest consumer reporters on the planet. Gephardt was the first TV reporter to cover the concept of a consumer suing a telemarketer using the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, when he covered Robert Arkow's victory over Bank Of America in 1995. Hats off to you Bill, for a job well done!

October 31, 2004

"The call was illegal under federal law...They know what they are doing is illegal, but they just see it as a cost of doing business."

Robert Arkow, president and founder of Californians Against Telephone Solicitation commenting to the Signal Newspaper about his second court victory against Xpedite.

Xpedite called Arkow's residence twice. The first time they called Arkow, he told them that the prerecorded calls were illegal and asked the caller to have Xpedite's legal staff call him. When they failed to respond after two weeks, he filed suit. But before the case could be heard at trial, Xpedite called again, so Arkow filed yet another lawsuit. He won $500 on the first case and $1,000 on the second. From the Signal Newspaper, Local Man Wins Suit Against Telemarketer, October 26, 2004. Arkow can be reached at (240) 248-6623.

CATS Comment: The hits just keep on commin'. One would think that telemarketers would get the message, but yet they still call! Consumers have to fight back using the law if this unlawful annoyance is to be stopped.

It is interesting to note that at this trial, we did not have to explain the law to the small claims judge. It turns out that this judge, like many small claims judges are part time judges in the county court system. The rest of the time they are in private practice.

After the trial was over, we complimented the judge on his knowledge of telemarketing laws. He stated that in private practice he had a client that engaged in telemarketing and was sued. He researched the laws for his client and that is how he knew the laws. Hats off to you, Judge Stark, for your knowledge of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. There is hope for our court system.

October 24, 2004

"It's time to put consumers to the forefront. I think in the past we haven't conveyed that message."

Lisa DeFalco, outgoing chairwoman of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting to DM News about how the ATA would launch and promote a self-regulatory organization, or SRO. DeFalco said that Government officials also would have to be involved to ensure the SRO's effectiveness. From DM News, ATA Urges Proactive Efforts to Protect Inbound, October 6, 2004. Ms. DeFalco can be reached at (215) 369-0500.

CATS Comment: We here at CATS commend the ATA and Ms. DeFalco for realizing that compliance with the laws and putting customers first is simply good business, and the right thing to do. With that in mind, on October 12 we e-mailed TPG Telemanagment (Ms. DeFalco's firm) and asked them for a copy of their written "Do Not Call" policy. Federal law requires that telemarketers provide their written policy "upon demand." The result? We received an autoresponder e-mail saying:

Your message has been relayed to the following recipient(s):

sales@tpginc.com
(Was addressed to sales@tpginc.com)
Message relayed

The message was successfully delivered to 1 recipient(s) at domain tpginc.com.

We have yet to receive an answer to our query.

Ms. DeFalco: It seems to us that if you feel that the teleservices industry should obey the law and put customers first, then perhaps you should start with your own firm.

October 17, 2004

"I feel like we've won. The industry has never had an organized voice and message. We accomplished a tremendous amount in one year."

Lisa DeFalco, outgoing chairwoman of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting to DM News about the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the national no-call list, and dismissing without comment a constitutional challenge filed by her organization.

DeFalco said the challenge was worth the money and effort even though it ultimately failed. In the year since the challenge was filed, the teleservices industry has united and made its case before lawmakers and regulating agencies, and the industry must now use those gains to protect its future. From DM News, Supreme Court Upholds DNC List, October 5, 2004. Ms. DeFalco can be reached at (215) 369-0500.

CATS Comment: Hold the phone! Let's see if we here at CATS understand what you are saying Ms. DeFalco. Your organization files a lawsuit against the national do not call list, claiming that the list is unconstitutional. It works its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. You have spent a large sum of your organization's money in legal fees to do this. The case then goes to the Supreme Court which dismisses your claim without comment. And after all this, you feel like you won?

Ms. DeFalco, if you truly view a dismissal without comment by the United States Supreme Court as "winning", then we here at CATS humbly suggest that you are wasting your talents in the telemarketing industry. You should consider coaching the Los Angeles Lakers instead. With most of the players from their championship team gone, the Lakers could sure use a talent like yours, Ms. DeFalco.

October 10, 2004

"As consumers, we need to fight back. If they [politicians] expect everybody else to follow the rules they should too"

Robert Arkow, President and Founder of Californians Against Telephone Solicitation (CATS) commenting to Reuters News Service about political pre-recorded solicitations that candidates running for election place to residential phones. Arkow filed an FCC complaint in 1998 against gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren (then California Attorney General) who left political recorded messages on answering machines all over California. The Federal Communications Commission found in Arkow's favor, ruling that Republican candidate Dan Lungren did not identify himself properly.

From Reuters News Service, Campaigns Pick Up the Phone to Get Out the Vote, September 24, 2004. Arkow can be reached at his e-mail address, bob@stopjunkcalls.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Politicians must follow FCC rules just like every other telemarketer. While they have the right to call consumers at home on the phone, leaving messages on private answering machines is another story, especially when the resident warns them in advance that he will charge a fee to do so.

Take Arkow's outbound message on his voice mail, for example:

"Hello. You have reached 661-XXX-XXXX (Number not displayed for privacy reasons). This voice mail system is privately owned and does not accept solicitations, including political solicitations, of any kind. Should you choose to leave a solicitation on this system, you agree, in advance, to pay a $500.00 storage fee within ten days of billing. Your solicitation left on this system constitutes acceptance of our terms. Here's the tone."

Arkow considers his voice mail similar to his driveway. While cars can park on the street in front of his house, they cannot park on his driveway, which is private property. If Arkow puts up a sign that says "Parking fee for this driveway -- $500.00", then persons parking on his driveway must pay him $500.00. Arkow's voice mail system is connected to the public switched network (telephone company) much like his driveway is connected to the street.

Will this work? Will this stop the calls? If they still call, can a resident collect the fee? Arkow intends to find out. Stay tuned.

October 3, 2004

"The level of public involvement's really quite extraordinary. More people have expressed a preference in telemarketing than voted for the last president of the United States."

Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, commenting on the large number of people that have signed up for the National Do Not Call list. As of today, over 60 million Americans have put their telephone numbers on the list. From C-Net News, Hanging up on telemarketers, October 4, 2004. Mr. Rotenberg can be reached at his office at: (202) 483-1140 x106.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Rotenberg brings up a good point. Yet, despite these numbers, businesses, charities, and politicians continue to call us. Many of the calls are illegal, or do not meet federal and/or state requirements, but ALL are unwelcome.

As consumers, we all need to fight back. Asking for a copy of their written 'Do-Not-Call' policy (if the caller is a business) is a good first step. Telling charities that no more donations will follow helps in that area. And as far as the political pre-recorded messages that the candidates are sure to leave on our voice mail machines in the next few weeks, we here at CATS have a solution. It will be featured next week on our "Quote Of The Week." Stay tuned!

September 26, 2004

"The problem is, if we don't do something about these, this is the wave of the future. You don't even have to employ anybody. You just have a computer set up, and you can make the calls by the tens of thousands, and all you do is cyber-pester people."

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem commenting on pre-recorded political calls which, in North Dakota, are prohibited regardless of whether the call's recipient has signed up for North Dakota's no-call list or not.

North Dakota law bars telemarketers and public opinion surveyors from using prerecorded messages in calling North Dakotans' homes, unless a person is on the line to introduce the call. From the Grand Forks Herald, TELEMARKETING: N.D. wants 'robo-calls' to hang up, September 20 2004. (The original article was written by Dale Wetzel of the Associated Press.) Mr. Stenehjem can be reached via his office at: 701 328-2210.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Yet another Attorney General weighs in on the subject of pre-recorded political calls. Too bad California's Attorney General is silent on this subject.

September 19, 2004

"People who work in our hospitals have more important things to worry about than answering calls from telemarketers. It can be especially frustrating, and in this case potentially dangerous, to have a telephone switchboard held hostage by these prerecorded messages."

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper commenting about actions taken by US District Court Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. to temporarily bar TNT DBS Marketing Inc. of Arlington, Texas from making illegal telemarketing calls to North Carolina consumers. Cooper is also asking the court to require the company, which sells satellite television services and equipment and does business as Digital World Satellite, Satellite City, Sat Pro and Satellite Solutions, to pay civil penalties and to permanently stop making unlawful calls in the state. From a press release by the North Carolina Attorney General's office, Cooper takes action against telemarketer that tied up hospital phones. Telemarketers pitching satellite TV forced to stop violating Do Not Call laws, September 13, 2004. Attorney General Cooper can be reached via the the North Carolina Department of Justice at: (919) 716-6400.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here is yet another example of telemarketers breaking the law and polluting our phone networks. And this is NOT an isolated example. Prior to the judge's ruling, it turns out that TNT DBS Marketing Inc. also jammed up the phone network in Oklahoma, where they allegedly tied up telephone lines to Integris Blackwell Regional Hospital, the Blackwell Police Department, and affected 911 service for communities surrounding Blackwell. You can read about it by clicking here.

Telemarketers do more than annoy people, their practices can be a danger to public safety. It is just a matter of time before a telemarketer's automatic dialer takes down a major 911 system. Can you imagine the public's reaction if the automatic dialer's message that took down a 911 center included the phrase: "I'm George W. Bush, and I authorized this message"?

September 12, 2004

"Consumers who signed up for the Texas No-Call list have the right to enjoy peace and quiet in their homes and not be disturbed by annoying telemarketing calls. We will continue to use this important law to defend the rights of consumers and bring legal action against those who choose to ignore it."

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott commenting on his department's obtaining three new settlements with telemarketers that made sales calls to consumers in violation of the “Texas No-Call” law.

Two companies agreed to a binding “assurance of voluntary compliance.” These are Mortgage Investors Corp. dba Amerigroup Mortgage Corp. of St. Petersburg, Florida; and Barry Hicks dba A to Z Movers of Dallas. In addition, the Attorney General obtained an agreed final judgment and permanent injunction against William H. Marra dba On Wheels Computer Repair Service of Dallas.

From a press release by the Texas Attorney General's office, Attorney General Abbott Wins No-call List Settlements With Three More Telemarketers Businesses must halt telephone sales pitches to consumers on Texas No-Call list, August 1, 2004. Attorney General Abbott can be reached via his Austin office at: (512) 463-2100.

C.A.T.S. Comment: WOW! Don't mess with Texas! Well it seems that yet another state attorney general is taking action against telemarketers. It seems that every week, we here at C.A.T.S. get yet another story about a state attorney general is active in telemarketing enforcement. Yet one state seems conspicuously absent from that list--California. While our Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, claims that the law will be enforced by his office, the volume of calls and e-mail that we see here at CATS seems to show otherwise.

September 5, 2004

"According to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), in addition to making calls to hundreds of thousands of registered phone numbers since October 17, 2003, BMG (Braglia Marketing Group, L.L.C.) also has made more than 10,000 calls to various phone numbers without first paying the required annual fee to access the registered numbers in those area codes. The FTC further alleges that BMG has abandoned calls to consumers by failing to connect the call to a representative within two seconds after consumers answered the phone. The FTC has charged the defendants with violating the Do Not Call Registry provisions and other provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule."

From a press release by the Office of Public Affairs for the Federal Trade Commission, August 31, 2004. The press release can be found on the FTC's web site. The office of public affairs can be reached at (202) 326-2674.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Well finally the FTC took some enforcement action. At first the National "Do-Not-Call" list seemed to be working but after just a few months the telemarketers are finding ways around it or ignoring it completely.

As we have often said before: No law, statute, rule, or ordinance will stop telemarketers as effectively as the law of economics. When they don't make any profit, the calls will stop. After you sue them--the calls should stop.

The TCPA provides a "private right of action" which was authorized by Congress, while the National "Do-Not-Call" list law only allows consumers to complain to the FTC. Which law do you think telemarketers fear more? We'll bet on the TCPA.

August 29, 2004

"Focus USA president Chicca D’Agostino must have consulted a crystal ball before speaking at the Direct Marketing Association’s List Vision conference two weeks ago. She and fellow panelist Chris Paradysz, CEO of ParadyszMatera, warned that the Federal Trade Commission was looking at list companies and their practices, and D’Agostino described the FTC’s extensive investigation of a list owner she knows.

Bam! A week later, the FTC announced a settlement with three list management companies, charging that they aided in illegal marketing of advance-fee credit products."

Tad Clark, Editor in Chief of DM News commenting in an editorial about the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) action involving 3 list companies who rented consumer lists to telemarketers knowing that the consumers would receive illegal telemarketing calls. The three companies in question are Carney Direct, ListData, and NeWorld. From DM News, Compliance Is Everybody’s Business, August 23, 2004. Mr. Clark can be reached via the DM News switchboard at: (212) 925-7300.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Clark, if it is your position that "Compliance Is Everybody’s Business" then your publication should set an example for other marketing organizations to follow. Why not, for example, deny advertising space for say, a year or so, to any marketer that engages in illegal behavior? That would certainly send a statement to the marketing world. Well, Mr. Clark? We are waiting for your answer.

Mr. Clark was informed of the quote and comment by telephone on on the morning of Monday, August 30, 2004. At his request, we read the quote to him. He had no comment.

August 22, 2004

"We continue to look at the list industry, just as we continue to look at everybody else who is involved in an assisting or facilitating role to what we consider fraud. If the evidence points us in the direction of liability, there is no reason not to pursue those avenues."

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) senior investigator Laureen France commenting about the FTC settlement against 3 list companies who rented consumer lists to telemarketers knowing that the consumers would receive illegal telemarketing calls.

According to the FTC, the three companies are list management firms that rent lists to direct marketers. Telemarketers to whom they supplied lists sent them sample scripts.

The scripts indicated the telemarketers were guaranteeing credit cards to consumers for one-time fees, a type of offer that is banned under the Telephone Sales Rule (TSR), the FTC said. List firms Carney Direct, ListData, and NeWorld knowingly aided in the illegal telemarketing activities, according to the FTC.

The settlements reached with the FTC bar the companies from selling or renting lists to telemarketers whose operations violate certain provisions of the TSR. Additionally, Carney Direct, ListData, and NeWorld have been ordered to pay $25,000, $100,000, and $62,500, respectively, in consumer redress. The proposed order against ListData contains a right to reopen clause that would require the company to pay $316,000 if it is found to have misrepresented its financial situation. From DM News, List Managers Settle Fraud Complaint With FTC, August 18, 2004. Mr. France can be contacted through the FTC's Northwest Region office at: (206) 220-6350.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bravo Ms. France! Finally the FTC is getting smart. By going after the companies that supply names and telephone numbers to illegal telemarketers, the FTC has found an effective method to thwart the illegal calls. Now if the FCC used the same technique against telephone companies who supply high capacity telephone trunks to illegal telemarketers, voice broadcasters, and junk faxers, maybe we consumers could have a peaceful night at home, and a fax machine free of advertising. Hats off to Ms. France and the FTC for a job well done!

August 15, 2004

"Any business large or small that engages in telemarketing activities without purchasing the 'no call' list or honoring consumers' requests not to be contacted, violate Pennsylvania law. Our residents won the right to stop unwanted telephone solicitations at their homes and my office will ensure the protection of that right. This legal action with Comcast, bars the company from conducting future telemarketing campaigns in Pennsylvania in violation of the 'no call' law."

Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert commenting on a settlement agreement with Comcast Cable. According to investigators, Comcast Cable from November 2002 through May 2003 began soliciting consumers on its own or through a telemarketer to promote and sell cable TV subscriptions and other services. The company is accused of conducting a statewide telemarketing campaign without purchasing Pennsylvania's "do not call" list. During that time approximately 2.9 million Pennsylvania consumers placed their names, telephone numbers and addresses on the "no call" registry. From a press release issued by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office, Philadelphia-based Comcast Cable to Comply with Pennsylvania "Do Not Call" Law, August 6 2004. The Pennsylvania Attorney General's office of consumer protection can be reached at: 215-560-2414.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hold the phone! We recently helped a consumer in Santa Clarita, California who uses Comcast Cable. She told them not to call on March 1, 2004.

Despite the no call request Comcast, called again on the following dates:

May 21 at 12:36 PM

May 21 at 4:19 PM

May 22 at 2:11 PM

May 24 at 2:15 PM

May 25 at 2:29 PM

June 1 at 12:07 PM

During each call Comcast transmitted a caller-id of "888 SERVICES" and a phone number of (888) 255-5789. A check with the California Secretary of State reveals no company registered called "888 SERVICES." Calling the phone number connects you to the general inbound number to Comcast Cable. Transmitting a phony caller-id is a violation of FCC rules.

Worse yet, CATS founder Robert Arkow requested a copy of Comcast's written "Do-Not-Call" policy on March 1, 2004, (the same day that the do not call request was made.) It has never arrived. This is yet another violation of FCC rules.

We will bring this to the attention of the cable regulators in the City of Santa Clarita as well as Comcast Cable. We will tell you the result - Stay tuned!

August 8, 2004

"Challenge:
Bank of America sought an experienced Customer Experience Management(CEM) partner to provide customer acquisition of credit insurance packages via the Bank of America card.

Solution:
APAC developed a 3-tier structure for 36 states and the District of Columbia. This program incorporated 95% on-site licensed agents in the largest tier, using unlicensed agents to initiate the call, with a licensed agent to follow-up, close, and handle details."

APAC Customer Services commenting on how they helped Bank of America peddle credit insurance for Bank of America cardholders. From APAC's web site, Case Study, Bank of America. The web page gives no date of creation. APAC can be reached at: (800) 688-7687. Bank of America does not appear to give a phone number on their web site to contact their executive staff.

C.A.T.S. Comment: On March 21, 2002 Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis said in a speech:

"The other day, a teammate of mine told me that the Federal Trade Commission has proposed a national "do not call" list for people who don't like to receive telemarketing calls at home. He wanted to know what I thought of the FTC's idea.

"Honestly, the only thought that popped into my head was: Why would we want to call people at home who are clearly hostile to the idea of being called at home?"

Clearly APAC was hired to make outbound calls to B of A customers in spite of what Mr. Lewis said in his speech. In view of this, we here at CATS would like to ask Mr. Lewis a simple question...Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Please, Mr. Lewis, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

August 1, 2004

"Telephone companies were exempted by the General Assembly from the No Call law and legislators have failed to close that loophole the past three years, so these agreements are significant. We will continue to go after telephone companies if we believe they are violating state or federal law with telemarketing calls"

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon commenting on a recent settlement with MCI and AT&T for violating the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Telemarketing calls from telephone companies have been the biggest source of complaints to his office from Missourians on the No Call list, with more than 10,000 complaints registered about such calls. Last July, Nixon filed lawsuits against AT&T, MCI and Southwestern Bell (SBC), alleging those telephone companies violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nixon said the violations occurred when the companies made repeat telemarketing calls to consumers who specifically asked those companies not to call them. SBC (the same company that used to serve California residents as Pacific Bell) has not yet settled with the State of Missouri, and a lawsuit is still pending. From a press release issued by the Missouri Attorney General's office, No more telemarketing calls from MCI, AT&T to the 1.6 million Missouri homes on No Call list, Nixon announces, July 27, 2004. Attorney General Nixon can be reached via his office at: (573) 751-3321.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Way to go Jay! While other state Attorney Generals go after violators that break both Federal and State laws, California's Attorney General, Bill Lockyer does little if anything to protect the privacy of residential telephones here in California. It is interesting to note although AT&T and MCI have entered into settlement agreements with the Missouri Attorney General's office, SBC has failed to do so at this time. It is also interesting to note that we at here at CATS asked SBC (our telephone provider) last October for a copy of their written "Do-Not-Call" policy. Federal law requires that they provide a written copy of the policy "upon demand." We are still waiting for it.

July 25, 2004

"Every Wisconsin family has had the experience of being interrupted at dinner by annoying, unwanted sales calls. "This law gives individuals the power to protect themselves and their family time from these calls, but it only works if it has teeth behind it. I will work with [State] Senator Erpenbach to pass legislation ensuring that our state's law continues to be the strongest in the nation."

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle commenting on how he will seek legislation to reinstate a $10,000 penalty for violators of the state's model No Call List and restore the right of citizens to sue companies that violate the law. A Dane County Circuit Court decision on June 29, 2004, upheld the basic provisions of the No Call law, but struck down the penalties. From a press release issued by the Governor's office, Doyle, Erpenbach Call for Legislation Reinstating Strong Penalties for No Call List Violators, July 15, 2004. Governor Doyle can be reached, via his office, at (608) 266-1212.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Wow! Whoever said, "Don't mess with Texas," hasn't been to Milwaukee lately! Way to go Gov! California may have the 'terminator' in Sacramento, but it seems that Wisconsin has one tough Governor when it comes to protecting residential privacy.

We here at CATS applaud your efforts, Governor Doyle. With a $10,000.00 fine in effect telemarketers might just think twice before calling a Wisconsin resident on the state's "Do-Not-Call" list.

July 18, 2004

"Any way you look at it, telemarketing is going to shrink. The point is to make sure it doesn't go away."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 year veteran of the telemarketing industry commenting on his new business venture, Authtel Permission Solutions. Hamilton believes that telemarketing, for the foreseeable future, will be used best as a permission-based tool -- much like e-mail.

Authtel aims to recover former customers who had no contact with a company within the time limits. The company would send a direct mailer containing an interactive CD-ROM to a former customer. Software on the CD-ROM would vary. One possibility would be an auto insurance agency sending a roadmap program to former customers.

When they load the disc, consumers would be sent to a Web site. The site would inform them that they are welcome to keep the software. They also would be asked to consider signing up for future telephone solicitations.

Consumers would dictate how often and when they would be called. Also included would be an easy opt-out method that could be used following the agreement.

From DM News, Industry Vet Applies E-Mail Ideas to Telemarketing, July 15, 2004. Mr. Hamilton can be reached at: (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We wish you well in your latest business venture, Jon. We at CATS commend you for asking for permission before calling a consumer, however we can't help but wonder what safeguards are built into your system prevent errors or worse yet, intentional misuse. For example, company X could use a 'bot' to send false permission (using its customer list) via Authtel's web site to Authtel. Once Authtel had 'permission' the telemarketing calls could begin.

We have seen so-called "permission based" systems before. For example, Fax.com would falsely claim (in court and under oath) that consumers called their office and asked for their advertisements, thus avoiding the junk fax law.

Last week we sent an e-mail to Authtel (via the form on their web site) asking what safeguards are build into Authtel's system. Our query was ignored.

Soon after we posted this quote, and informed Mr. Hamilton that he was the Quote Of The Week, we received the following response from him:

Bob - this is NOT a scheme. Our system is called Company Specific Permission (CSP) and is designed to comply fully with both the spirit and letter of the TSR. In order to grant permission, the customer is given a full disclosure as to what they are agreeing to (ie, who the company is and the products for which he/she might be called, along with how often the calls would be made and we recommend no more than 2-3 times per year). They would then be asked to provide an electronic signature.
E-mail from Jon Hamilton sent Sunday, July 18, 2004 at 7:17 PM.

We commend you Jon for your quick response, and we wish you well in your efforts. As we have often stated, we will (and do) post e-mail responses to our Quote Of The Week. Thanks for your quick response.

July 11, 2004

"AT&T has faced accusations of a "back-door" marketing scheme involving the erroneous bills. The company began charging an extra fee for customers of its basic, direct-dialed long distance plan, but some consumers who didn't have the plan got charged -- including some who weren't AT&T customers at all. In May, 2004, the company said 1.1 million consumers received erroneous bills, including 200,000 to 300,000 non-customers.

"Consumers reported receiving high-pressure upsells when they called AT&T to complain, causing some to think that they had to upgrade their plans to avoid the charges. This led to suggestions that AT&T issued the erroneous bills on purpose to generate inbound calls and avoid the national no-call list. AT&T has denied those accusations."

Scott Hovanyetz, a senior reporter for DM News, reporting on the continuing saga of AT&T's problems concerning their most recent marketing actions. They have been working with Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch to try and resolve a recent lawsuit filed by Hatch's office over their so-called "billing errors". Interestingly enough, AT&T has recently settled a lawsuit with the New York attorney general's office over similar "billing errors", agreeing to refund 311,000 New Yorkers and pay $400,000 in civil penalties. From DM News, More Refunds in AT&T Billing Error Case, July 2, 2004. Mr. Hovanyetz can be reached at scotth@dmnews.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: As stated in the DM News article, AT&T has denied the accusations that they intentionally billed phone subscribers in order to generate inbound calls to their call centers. In fact, a spokesperson for AT&T has stated that:

 "It is important to note that these are billing errors only and that AT&T has not engaged in slamming or unauthorized switch activity. There have also been allegations that we purposely misbilled customers in order to induce them to call AT&T. This is flat-out wrong."
Source: DM News, AT&T Bills, Upsell Draw Lawsuits and Suspicions, May 14, 2004.

We here at CATS believe AT&T's denial. We also believe in the tooth fairy, that the earth is flat, and that President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Please AT&T, put us on your "Do-Not-Gall" list.

July 4, 2004

"It is no surprise that the Holy Grail in telemarketing these days is inbound sales and customer service. With federal and state regulations growing in breadth and intensity, and consumer acceptance of outbound telemarketing plummeting, companies industry-wide are looking to replace outbound revenue streams with the more reliable and accepted inbound alternatives."

Robert Zimmerman, vice president of sales at Fulfillment Plus Inc., commenting on the new reality in the telemarketing industry, inbound telemarketing sales. He also suggests that "as more companies abandon outbound initiatives, there will be fewer legitimate companies to divide the shrinking pie. Telemarketing’s effect on the national economy is staggering. Despite roadblocks and barriers to success being erected by the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission and state authorities, the economy will not allow the extinction of live-agent sales calling."

From DM News, The Clamor for Inbound Grows, July 2, 2004. Mr. Zimmerman can be reached via email at: r_zimmerman@comcast.net.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Welcome to the reality of telemarketing in the new millennium! The fact is that an inbound telemarketing call may be more intrusive than an outbound telemarketing call. While one can simply hang up on an outbound telemarketer, one has to listen to an inbound telemarketer while you wait for a product or service on the phone. And when the live operator comes on the line, you can be sure that they will 'pitch' even more products or services to you.

And as a consumer, you will have little choice, since all the major companies in an industry will engage in this sort of marketing.

Now is the time for consumers to use the existing laws to put a stop to this. CATS will definitely pursue this issue in the future. Stay tuned!

June 27, 2004

"American Home Craft blatantly disregarded one of the most significant consumer protection laws ever enacted. We expect all telemarketers to respect the wishes of consumers who put their names on the federal Do Not Call registry so that they may enjoy uninterrupted evenings with their families and friends in the privacy of their homes. We will continue to file complaints and obtain judgments against unscrupulous companies that interrupt people's lives in violation of this landmark law."

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer commenting on his settlement with American Home Craft, in what is believed to have been the first lawsuit filed in the nation charging a company with violating the national Do Not Call law.

Filed in November 2003, the Attorney General's complaint charged American Home Craft Inc. and two of the company's officers with making illegal telemarketing phone calls to more than 120 Californians who had placed their names on the national Do Not Call registry. The complaint also charged the home improvement company with continuing to call customers after they asked to be placed on the company's internal do-not-call list in violation of federal law.

From a press release from the California Attorney General's office, ATTORNEY GENERAL LOCKYER OBTAINS JUDGMENT IN FIRST "DO NOT CALL" LAWSUIT FILED IN NATION - American Home Craft Must Obey Telemarketing Laws, Pay $100,000, June 23, 2004. Mr. Lockyer can be reached via the Public Inquiry Unit at : (916) 322-3360.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Judging from the mail that we get here at CATS, it seems that the law continues to be violated at an increasing pace. While we commend the Attorney General for his action, we also know that his office needs to do more in this area. A good first step would be a brief to the lawyers and judges here in California explaining the TCPA, and state telemarketing laws. The experiences of most California litigants against telemarketers has been dubious at best. As the chief law enforcement officer in the state, he has a responsibility to educate the judges in this matter.

Recently, we went to court against a telemarketer who didn't even show up. The judge was unfamiliar with the law(s) and rather than just find the defendant guilty, he chose to take the case under submission, a highly unusual procedure in California Small Claims Courts. He admitted that he did not know the law and wanted to review it. For the record, he did find the company guilty and assessed a $500.00 judgment.

June 20, 2004

"Customers need to feel they are in control of how they are communicated to, deciding when, where, how and how often they are contacted. Proactive customer care means providing customers with options that let them control the means of communications and can be achieved by letting customers opt in to such services...

The call center units of the enterprise are transforming. While federal regulations such as the no-call list have hampered the marketing practices of the call center, increased competitive pressures have forced customer-care business units to re-examine their business practices to reduce customer churn...

A happy customer is a loyal customer, and a loyal customer tends to be a profitable customer. Proactive communications can go a long way toward 'getting to happy.'"

 

Ben Levitan, CEO of Envoy World Wide, a marketing firm that specializes in automated notification services, commenting on communicating with customers. His firm deals with automated communications, such as fraud alerts and collections. From DM News, Improve Customer Loyalty Through Proactive Communications, June 14, 2004. Mr. Levitan can be reached though his company, Envoy World Wide, toll free, at: (866) 522-3299.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Sounds good on the surface Ben, but we at CATS bet that "proactive communications" can mean trying to "upsell" the customer with automated messages (even if the customer is on a company specific "Do-Not-Call" list.) Such inbound sales pitches are illegal if the customer is on the company's "Do-Not-Call" list.

Let's hope that your company uses its technology for the reasons that you outline in the article and not engage in activity that is in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

If you choose to respond to this challenge we will be happy to post your response. We would love to hear from you.

Mr. Levitan responds:

Bob,

I wanted to thank you for your offer to educate me on the ins and outs of the calling rules, especially those in California, as well as providing me a forum to respond to your post.

At EnvoyWorldWide, we take this legislation very seriously and always appreciate being in the company of others that share our views.

First and foremost, I want to clarify a statement that you made in your commentary, EnvoyWorldWide is not, has never been, nor aspires to be a marketing firm -- we are a provider of enterprise notification technology. We provide our customers technology to enable a broad range of communications-based initiatives, including everything from proactive customer care programs to business continuity emergency communications across phone, fax, email, pager, sms, etc.

For example, when an emergency occurs, hospitals use EnvoyWorldWide to contact doctors to assist with triage efforts; EWW helps power companies (including two very large ones in California) notify hospitals and patients on life support that there is a rolling blackout coming and it's time to switch to back up power. We help insurance companies, credit card companies, etc. proactively notify customers when paperwork is missing, EFT has been activated or services are in peril of lapsing.

So, in regards to your "challenge"...

Your comments on the article that I wrote - "Improving Customer Loyalty through Proactive Communications" - were misguided. First, I assure you that our customers use EnvoyWorldWide's technology not to up sell their existing customers, but to better serve them -- in an "opt-in" fashion that fully complies with all relevant laws and regulations.

We do all of this because, after all, we're consumers too.

So, before you throw EnvoyWorldWide into the same bucket as other communications companies that don't comply and are offensive, please remember that we have proven through experience with over 100 enterprises that by automating the proactive delivery of customer messages -- account activations, payment scheduling, account balances, and more -- enterprises can help their customers avoid the frustrations that are often associated with having to call into a call center or simply not knowing.

Simply put, we stand on the belief that by proactively solving problems before they happen, organizations can ultimately increase customer satisfaction and build brand loyalty.

Best wishes,

Ben

June 13, 2004

"Every time your [cell] phone rings and you answer it, you pay for it. Can you imagine how high telemarketers could run up your phone bill?"

California State Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes (D-Fresno), commenting about State Assembly Bill 1733, proposed legislation that would require the wireless industry to obtain customer permission before listing cellular numbers in a directory and database that could be sold to telemarketers. The bill is co-authored by Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine). From the San Diego Union Tribune, Customers could block listings, avert sales calls, June 8, 2004. Assemblywoman Reyes can be reached through her State Assembly office in Fresno at: (559) 445-5532. Assemblyman Campbell can be reached via his State Assembly office in Irvine at: (949) 863-7070.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Cell phone companies now see privacy of numbers as a selling point, unlike their landline cousins. AT&T wireless and Verizon wireless have no current plans to share their customer information. Of course this could change in a heartbeat, and considering how these companies have abused personal information in the past, such an abuse in the future would be no surprise to us here at CATS.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits telephone solicitations to cell phone via automatic dialers. It also provides a private right of action for consumers as well. But before you file suit, you have to determine if the call to your cell phone was placed via an auto dialer or not. And worse yet, a defendant can simply claim that the call was dialed manually, and you have no way of proving otherwise.

These assembly members should propose a new California State law (or modify the current proposed Assembly Bill), which would prohibit ALL telephone solicitations to cell phones (regardless of how they are dialed), and provide a private right of action (in small claims court) for $1,000 per solicitation (similar to the TCPA) for consumers who receive such calls. Class action lawsuits in Superior Court should be allowed as well.

Are you listening Ms. Reyes and Mr. Campbell?

June 6, 2004

"While we are confirming receipt of your credit card we'd like to tell you how Bank of America can help you protect your credit with a special offer from Privacy Source for Bank of America customers. With identity theft on the rise someone could use your name to gain credit without you even knowing about it, so it's important to review your credit report on an ongoing basis. That's why we'd like to give you a copy of your credit report just for trying Bank of America Privacy Source Credit Monitoring Service for two months for just one dollar."

Recording played to Bank of America customers (including those that are on the bank's 'Do-Not-Call' list) when they call the toll free number listed on their new Bank of America Visa card to 'activate' their credit card. To hear the actual recording click here. The 'sales pitch' lasts for one minute and 29 seconds. It probably takes the bank a few hundred milliseconds (less than 2-3 seconds) to verify the information, but they make the customer listen to their sales pitch for over a minute. While the customer can press "1" to get more information about the program, there is no option to say "no." Bank of America's credit card division can be reached at (800) 732-9194.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Federal Trade Commission has ruled that:

"[I]n any upsell, the seller or telemarketer initiates the offer; it is not the consumer who solicits or requests the transaction. This means that the consumer is hearing the terms of that upsell offer for the first time on the telephone. The consumer has not had an opportunity to review and consider the terms of the offer in a direct mail piece, or to view an advertisement and gather information on pricing or quality of the particular good or service before determining to make the purchase. This makes an upsell very much akin to an outbound telephone call from the consumer's perspective, even when the seller is someone with whom the consumer is familiar." (Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rules, 68 Fed.Reg. 4580, 4597 (Jan. 29, 2003) (FTC Telemarketing Sales Rules))

The California courts agree with this ruling. (See West v. San Diego Superior Court, Case # GIC805541. Page 12) And interestngly enough, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), passed by Congress in 1992, defines a telephone solicitation as:

...the initiation of a telephone call or message (emphasis added) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or message (A) to any person with that person's prior express invitation or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an established business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit organization. (C.A.T.S. note: If you tell a company not to call you anymore, the "established business relationship" ends, for the purpose of this law.)

Thus, according to the law, Bank of America is making 'telephone solicitations' when customers call in to 'activate' their credit cards. And, in at least one case, some of the recipients of these 'telephone solicitations' are on the bank's "do not call" list.

C.A.T.S. finds it very provocative that even though Bank of America's CEO, Ken Lewis, has publicly stated that he supports the National Do-Not-Call list laws, the bank still continues to do 'telephone solicitations' on its customers residential telephones.

Mr. Lewis' speeches remind us of the tobacco executives that told Congress (on national television) that nicotine wasn't addictive. Of course we believed them too!

May 30, 2004

"This order will stop AT&T dead in its tracks. This is a great victory for the people of Florida and only round one in our fight with AT&T. We will be relentless and unyielding in our fight against AT&T on behalf of consumers until all appropriate damages are recovered. If AT&T violates this court order, the company could be held in contempt of court."

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist commenting on a court order against AT&T for "billing errors." When consumers called AT&T to have the bogus charges removed they were solicited for various AT&T products and services. Under the interim stipulation, AT&T must:

• Cease and desist any wrongful billing practices.

• Refund all wrongfully billed Floridians for monthly recurring long-distance and associated charges no later than June 15.

• Refrain from pitching services when consumers call about billing issues unless information about additional services is specifically requested.

From a press release by the Florida Attorney General's office, Court Orders AT&T to Refund Wrongfully Billed Charges, May 20, 2004. Attorney General Crist may be reached via his office at: (850) 414-3300.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The courts are beginning to recognize inbound telemarketing as a consumer issue. For example, the Florida court ordered AT&T to stop soliciting customers when they call in about billing issues.

C.A.T.S. believes that it is just a matter of time before the courts interpret the laws to cover various aspects of inbound telemarketing, using the existing laws that currently regulate outbound telemarketing.

May 23, 2004

"We found the same type of sales techniques that work on outbound calls work on a service call. In fact, a good customer service call will sound an awful lot like an outbound sales call."

Edward Johnson, vice president of Mass Marketing Insurance Group, Inc. commenting about the fact that, as a result of the national do-not-call list, there are less prospects to call. As a result, Mass Marketing Insurance Group has managed to turn call center seats formerly used for inbound complaints into revenue centers. From Direct Magazine, Insurance Group Turns Complaints Into Cash, March 1, 2004. Mr. Johnson can be reached at (484) 654-1160 x26.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Welcome to the new telephone marketing reality for the new millennium. If they cannot sell us by calling us at home, the new strategy is to sell to us when we want service. It is just a matter of time before companies purposely create billing errors in order to generate inbound calls where consumers will be 'pitched' new products or services.

C.A.T.S. will soon release a .wav file of Bank of America's latest effort in this area. While calling to "activate" a Bank of America Visa card (from one's home phone number) the consumer is repeatedly 'pitched' for the bank's "Privacy Source Credit Monitoring Service" program.

Is this what consumers have to look forward to? Guess so, unless we can convince judges that existing law covers such unwanted sales pitches. Stay tuned.

May 16, 2004

"TeleService U.S.A. called Pennsylvania residents without disclosing that it is a paid professional solicitor, according to a complaint filed October 31st with the Department of State. TeleService U.S.A. also allegedly failed to disclose that its employees were calling on behalf of Save A Child Foundation and misrepresented its organization as calling on behalf of Make-A-Wish Foundation, the complaint says.

Save A Child Foundation, also allegedly failed to establish and maintain control over TeleService U.S.A.’s activities, according to the complaint, and neither organization had an approved contract on file with the state’s Bureau of Charitable Organizations when making solicitation calls. Furthermore, Save A Child Foundation allegedly made false material statements in required paperwork under the Act, according to the complaint."

Comments issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding the activities of TeleService U.S.A. and the Save a Child foundation of Michigan activities in conducting fundraising by telemarketing. From a press release by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department Of State Charges Save A Child Foundation, Teleservice U.S.A. With Charities Violations, November 3, 2003. The Department of State for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can be reached through their media contacts, Allison Hrestak or Brian McDonald at (717) 783-1621.

C.A.T.S. Comment: This is yet another example of a telemarketer invading our homes and using the suffering of small children to make a profit. Worse yet, if you donate to these organizations, they most likely will continue to call you for even more donations! It is best just to say that you will not donate to anyone over the phone and leave it at that.

Our thanks to "JQP", a regular poster to our bulletin board, for providing the link to this week's quote.

May 9, 2004

"While the testimony indicated that this cost could be as low as 3 cents per page, any appropriation of another's property without consent is abhorrent to the American idea of property rights regardless of the value of the property involved."

Ruling by the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, against Fax.com and other senders of junk faxes. The court held that even though fax machines are connected to the public switched network, that does not give someone the right to use that (private) property without the user's permission. From DM News, NY Court Upholds Junk-Fax Ban, April 29, 2004. The Court can be contacted through the office of the Court Clerk at (718) 643-5730.

C.A.T.S. Comment: This is a very interesting ruling. If the court views a "fax machine" as "private property," then why not a voice mail system or answering machine as well? So if you are sick and tired of pre-recorded pitches on your voice mail, then you might consider about making an outbound message that says:

"This voice mail system (or answering machine) is private property. If you choose to leave an unsolicited political, charitable, or commercial message on this system without prior permission, the advertiser will be charged a $500.00 storage fee. Your unsolicited message constitutes acceptance of our terms. Here's the tone."

It seems that the courts more and more are agreeing with the concept of "electronic trespass" when it comes to junk faxes, junk calls, and spam. Rather than argue "1st amendment" issues, simple tort law may well be the answer to a quiet, junk free, night at home. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule on this one. Stay tuned!

May 2, 2004

"We do not believe that when a customer asks not to be called, that constitutes a termination of a relationship for purposes of this rule."

Kathryn D. Kohler, Assistant General Counsel for Bank of America making public comments to the Federal Communications Commission on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (CG Docket No. 02-278, commonly known as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act). To view her public comments click here. From the FCC's web page, public comments to Docket 02-278, December 3, 2002. Ms. Kohler can be reached at (704) 386-9644.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bank of America believes that even if a customer requests no more telemarketing, they can continue to solicit them despite their wishes. Too bad the courts and the FCC seem to disagree with that position. And that position seems particularly strange, since Bank of America's CEO, Ken Lewis claims to support the national do-not-call list law.

In view of these facts, we at CATS humbly suggest that Bank of America change their advertising slogan from "Higher Standards" to "Slyer Standards."

April 25, 2004

"We believe that the rights to free speech are being unduly trampled under the guise of consumer protection, and now we'll take our appeal to the highest level.

"Errors of the Court of Appeals go to the heart of commercial speech protection, beyond just teleservices, and will have an adverse impact on any direct marketing channel. The 10th Circuit [court's] opinion demonstrates that commercial speech is under attack."

Tim Searcy, the executive director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA), commenting about how his organization will fight the national do-not-call list law in the courts. According to Searcy, the ATA would like to see regulations that allow consumers to control incoming calls through company-specific do-not-call lists that require individual firms to refrain from contacting consumers who indicate they do not wish to receive calls. From Direct Magazine, DMA [Direct Marketing Association] Backs Down, ATA Forges On, April 1, 2004. Mr. Searcy can be reached, via the ATA, at: (317) 816-9336 x103.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Go for it Tim! If you think the public is angry with the telemarketing industry now, just wait until the Supreme Court overturns the law that created the national do-not-call list.

We at CATS actually support your efforts. The ATA claims that the current law is unconstitutional because it allows politicians and charities to make calls but restricts commercial callers. We agree.

If the court overturns the law, as written, how long do you think that the Congress will take to pass a law banning ALL calls? If recent history is an indicator, it should take less than a week.

We wish you the best of luck with your efforts. We find the calls from politicians and charities just as annoying as calls from commercial vendors. If you are successful in overturning the law, relief should be on its way very quickly.

April 18, 2004

"Thank you for sending the recent California Court of Appeals Decision. [Despite this ruling] We stand by our practices."

Kristy Hennessey, Vice President - Government Relations for Time Warner Cable, commenting in a letter to C.A.T.S. founder Robert Arkow about a court ruling that Arkow sent to her and Time Warner. The ruling, by the the California Court of Appeals, stated in part, (on page 12,) that "We agree with the Federal Trade Commission; an upsell is like an outbound telephone call and therefore this case is similar to the AT&T case." In a prior letter to Ms. Hennessey, Arkow pointed out that Time Warner is in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when they try to upsell to their customers calling in for customer service. To see the court's complete ruling click here. Ms. Hennessey can be reached at: (714) 903-4171.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The TCPA defines a telephone solicitation as the initiation of a telephone call or message (emphasis added) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.....

The law makes no difference who initiated the call. If a consumer tells a company that he wants no more telephone solicitations, they must stop, no matter who initiates the call.

So if you are on Time Warner's do-not-call list, it is illegal for them to 'pitch' to you on the phone. However, when you call them for customer service, it seems that they cheerfully ignore the law and play pre-recorded sales pitches for various products and services while you are on hold waiting for the next available operator.

Last year Robert Arkow won a $500.00 judgment against Time Warner because they called him on his cell phone and tried to sell him enhancements to his cable service. This was the second time that Arkow has sued Time Warner Cable. The first case was settled out of court.

Future action is being considered against Time Warner Cable. It seems that some companies just never learn.

April 11, 2004

"I favor it [the national 'do-not-call' list] strongly. I think I'm wasting money calling people who don't want to talk to us. I'm irritating them and giving us a bad image."

George Dalton, chairman and chief executive of Call Solutions™ in Waukesha, Wisconsin. From the Chicago Tribune, Telemarketers switching to reconnect with profits, March 29, 2004. Mr. Dalton can be reached at: (262) 827-6450.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here's a third telemarketing executive saying that the national "do-not-call" list has helped his business. (See our Quote of the Week for the last two weeks.)

Unfortunately, when we asked for a copy of Call Solutions™ written "do-not-call" policy we were ignored, despite several requests to their offices in both Waukesha, Wisconsin and Calabasas, California. No one in the firm knew that law requires that they provide it, nor did they have a procedure to make the policy available.

Perhaps we should file a lawsuit and educate them. That is usually what it takes to teach telemarketers a lesson.

C.A.T.S. note: We finally received a "do-not-call" policy from Call_Solutions™. It has an effective date of April 9, 2004. We wonder what "Do-not-call" policy they had in effect prior to that date, if any. To view the policy in PDF format click here.

April 4, 2004

"It's [the national 'do-not-call' list] helped us. You have fewer names but a better hit ratio. You're getting all the people who will never respond favorably to your phone call out of the way."

Steve Korn, owner of Quancor Marketing Solutions in Roselle, Illinois, commenting on the impact of the national "do-not-call" list on his business. In fact, while other companies have laid off telemarketing workers, Quancor has been hiring since January. From the Chicago Tribune, Telemarketers switching to reconnect with profits, March 29, 2004. Mr. Korn can be reached, toll free at: (888) 671-0090.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here's yet another telemarketing executive (and owner of a telemarketing firm) saying that the national "do-not-call" list has helped his business. (See our Quote of the Week last week.)

One has to wonder why the only organization that exclusively represents telemarketers, the American Teleservices Association (ATA) wants to take this issue to the Supreme Court? We at CATS would like to ask all of the members of the ATA if they want their hard earned dues money to go for a fight that they will probably lose, and is counter-productive to their business model if they win? Perhaps the ATA should ask its members the same question.

Thanks, Mr. Korn, for your honesty, and for telling it like it is. We, here at CATS, commend you.

March 28, 2004

"The national [do-not-call] registry will also trim out consumers who are unwilling to purchase products or services via the telephone. Instead of fishing in an ocean, telemarketers will now be casting into the waters of a stocked stream, calling a more qualified pool of prospective customers. Thus, combined with an optimized workforce, telemarketers should be able to convert a higher percentage of calls to sales, as compared to a setting where upwards of six percent of calls are abandoned. In short, the regulations will create more effective and lucrative outbound dialing operations."

James F. Mitchell, senior vice president and CTO of Concerto Software, a provider of customer interaction management solutions for telemarketers. As a co-founder of Concerto Software, (then called Davox Corp.), Mitchell helped pioneer and proliferate predictive dialing technology. From Customer Inter@ction Solutions Magazine, 3 Percent, 2 Seconds And 1 Chance To Do It Right: Using The Predictive Dialer In An Age Of Government Regulation, March 2004 issue. Mr. Mitchell can be reached, toll free, at (800) 480-2299.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What's this? A telemarketing pro suggesting that the national "do-not-call" list is good for business? Yes--its true!.

Mr. Mitchell tells it like it is. After hearing gloom and doom stories from the telemarketing pros regarding the national "do-not-call" list, its nice to hear a breath of truth.

Mr. Mitchell uses pure logic when he says that if the people who won't buy from telemarketers were removed from calling lists, the end result would be more sales. What a concept, finally, the truth!

No more stories about asteroids hitting the earth or the end of towns like Harlan, Iowa from him, Nope, just plain logic, pure and simple.

We here at CATS thank you Mr. Mitchell for telling the truth. We commend you sir.

March 21, 2004

"Consumers are going to be angry about anybody doing what they perceive to be some sleazy legal maneuver. They're not going to understand the constitutional issue."

Jon Hamilton, a 30-year veteran of the telemarketing industry, and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the fact that telemarketers are divided over the American Teleservices Association's (ATA) Supreme Court challenge to the national no-call list. Some telemarketers favor the ATA's all-or-nothing fight, while others agree with the Direct Marketing Association's low-key approach not to continue the fight in court. From DM News, Telemarketers Split on No-Call Appeal, March 8, 2004. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: C'mon Jon, a man as intelligent as you knows better than that. As a former professor who taught telemarketing at Temple University, you know that "do-not-call" lists do not have anything to do with constitutional issues. Telemarketers can sell anything they want, from insurance policies to pornography. What the "do-not-call" list laws do is control the delivery of that speech by telephone into private residences. It is not "content based", but rather "delivery based" and delivery based restrictions are constitutional.

The fact of the matter is that most consumers fully understand the constitutional issues. They also understand that they do not want their living rooms turned into sales venues.

Who's kidding whom Jon? Wasn't it you who also predicted if the national "do-not-call" list was enacted that small towns like Harlan, Iowa, would be wiped off the map? (See our quote of the week for July 21, 2002.) Last time we checked, Harlan, Iowa was still there.

We here at CATS humbly suggest that as a former college professor who taught telemarketing at Temple University, you re-evaluate your lesson plan.

March 14, 2004

"As I wrote two weeks ago, I think -- at this point -- it’s in the industry’s best interest to work with the feds to make the regulations as palatable as possible. Last fall’s consumer backlash would be a taste of what we would see if the Supreme Court overturned the ruling."

Tad Clark, Editor in Chief of DM News, in an editorial about the American Teleservices Association's (ATA) decision to appeal the ruling that upheld the National 'Do-Not-Call' list to the US Supreme Court. From DM News, Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t, March 8, 2004. Mr. Clark can be reached at DM News headquarters at (212) 925-7300

C.A.T.S. Comment: C'mon Mr. Clark, get real. Do you really think that telemarketers care about bad publicity? The fact of the matter is that telemarketers could not get much lower in the court of public opinion then they are now.

It now seems clear that the ATA doesn't care how much they drag down the rest of the direct marketing industry. As a magazine that reports on the direct marketing industry exclusively, one has to wonder why your publication did not cover that part of the story?

March 7, 2004

"Don't think for a minute that I believe the national do-not-call list is here to stay. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States judicial system will strike this regulation down as unconstitutional"

Tim Searcy, Executive Director of the American Teleservices Association's (ATA) Strategic Planning Fund. Mr. Searcy was responsible for working with the ATA Board and outside counsel to develop and fund the legal strategy to combat the FTC's recent revisions to the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as well as the pending review of the FCC's Telephone Consumer Protection Act. From Customer Inter@ction Solutions, The Seven Myths Of Outbound Telemarketing After DNC, February 2004 issue. Mr. Searcy can be reached at (317) 816-9336 x103.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Hold the phone! Last year Mr. Searcy said that if the National "Do-Not-Call" list was put into effect "It will be like an asteroid hitting the Earth. Two million people will lose their jobs." (See our Quote Of The Week, September 21, 2003.)

Well, it was put into effect, and over 53 million households have signed up for it. The net result: quieter evenings at home free from telemarketing calls. Considering his past track record, should we believe him now? Mr. Searcy and the ATA intend to continue continue a costly court battle over the national list all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Direct Marketing Association, on the other hand, has stated that they will not pursue further legal action against the national list. They recognize the fact that that the list meets all legal requirements and the chance to overturn the court's decision is very slim. Finally they recognize the tremendous bad publicity that such an action would generate.

Mr. Searcy's actions proves the old saying--A fool and his association's money are soon parted.

February 29, 2004

"In 2004, the 60 million plus consumers who've listed their phone number with the Do-Not-Call "DNC" registry will express surprise and disgust with politicians, charities and companies they patronize that continue calling in record numbers during dinner. The fact is most consumers listed with the DNC registry don't realize these organizations are excluded"

W. Michael King, group vice president and creative director of Grizzard Performance Group, the strategic consulting arm of The Grizzard Agency. Mr. King has more than 20 years of direct marketing experience on both the client and agency side. From Direct Marketing Magazine, Guest Commentary: 2004: A Year of Marketing Realizations, February 3, 2004. Mr. King can be reached at (404) 522-8330 x7474.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We agree with Mr. King. Slick lawyers are developing legal theories on how to get around the new National "Do-Not-Call" list rules. Using the 'established business relationship' rule, companies can call you all they want until you tell them to stop. And experience tells us that that telling them to stop is often not effective.

We at CATS have found, however, that once a consumer files a lawsuit against a telemarketer, telemarketing calls seem be reduced tremendously. It seems that many direct marketers and list brokers have "predator" lists of people that sue telemarketers. If you can get on a "predator" list, you will get far less telemarketing calls.

February 22, 2004

"Just as a consumer can avoid door-to-door peddlers by placing a 'No Solicitation' sign in his or her front yard, the do-not-call registry lets consumers avoid unwanted sales pitches that invade the home via telephone. We are convinced that the First Amendment does not prevent the government from giving consumers this option."

Ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upholding the National Do-Not-Call list maintained by the Federal Trade Commission. The ruling was a complete victory for consumers. The plaintiffs did not prevail on even one issue. From CBS News' web site, Court Upholds Do-Not- Call List, February 17, 2004. You can contact the Clerk of the Court at: (303) 844-3157.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bravo to the Court! With common sense judgments so rare from the courts these days, its nice to see one. In it's ruling the Court also said: "the ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality."

Telemarketers may appeal this decision to the US Supreme Court, but their chances are not too promising. Perhaps now they will leave us alone, but we at CATS wouldn't bet on it.

February 15, 2004

"We're not calling out anybody in particular just because they filed a lawsuit against a telemarketer. I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to call anyone a predator."

Al Babbington, president of CallCommand, Cincinnati, OH commenting about his company's products for the telemarketing industry. One such product screens calls against what CallCommand refers to as a "predator" list of lawsuit-happy customers. Privacy advocates said they were angry that the company has characterized people who sue telemarketers as "predators," prompting CallCommand's president to rethink the list's name. From DM News, 'Predator' List Miffs Privacy Advocates, February 9, 2004. Mr. Babbington can be reached, toll free, at (877) 862-6662.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Predator list??? Is that what it takes to make companies stop calling? It seems so.

C.A.T.S. founder, Robert Arkow, reports that in the last two years he has received only one sales call. Lawyers for telemarketers in the past have told Arkow that he is on such a list, since he has successfully sued many telemarketers.

Arkow's experiences show that, given a financial incentive, (i.e. avoiding lawsuits), companies do leave us alone. Too bad we ALL can't get on a "predator list."

February 8, 2004

"We need to have the guts to speak out when some of our industry brethren are not doing the right thing. After all, their wrongs hurt the rest of us. Finally, we need the Direct Marketing Association to stand up, demonstrate some of the leadership that we all know it's capable of wielding and build consensus.

Consumers are angry, and it's only a matter of time before Washington listens and sends more legislation our way. Our lack of movement on these issues sends a message - we are BEGGING government to step in and do what we've proven unwilling or unable to do. Is that really what we want?"

Alan Chapell, President of Chapell & Associates, commenting about the state of marketing in the United States, in a published letter to the editor of DM News. Mr. Chapell points out that are many so-called "responsible" marketers who also fail to respect the privacy rights of consumers. From DM News, Letter: Industry Can't Operate Like the Old Days Any More, February 2, 2004. Mr. Chapell can be reached at (212) 675-1270.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Chapell is right on. As mega-corporations continue to abuse our privacy, consumers will demand even more government action. In addition, consumers will try to avoid giving out personal information or, even worse, if forced to provide personal information, they will "corrupt" the data given to companies by lying. How many of us have given "phony" telephone numbers when asked for our personal phone number?

Ultimately, corrupted databases and customer anger will erode the brand name of any company that engages in bad marketing practices. In short: Good marketing practices go hand-in-hand with good business practices.

February 1, 2004

"The DMA has supported transmitting caller identification information because it enhances two-way communication between people making and receiving phone calls. Whether to buy a product or service, provide feedback, or to ask not to be called again, caller-ID is good for businesses and good for consumers."

Patricia Faley Kachura, vice president, ethics & consumer affairs, of the Direct Marketing Association commenting on the fact that beginning January 27, 2004, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations required outbound telemarketing calls to include caller identification information to consumers. The rule applies to businesses that make telemarketing calls, as well as service providers that make them on their behalf. From Direct Magazine, Telemarketers Required to Transmit Caller-ID Info, January 29, 2004. Ms. Kachura can be reached at: (212) 768-7277 x2410

C.A.T.S. Comment: It sounds too good to be true--and it is! It seems that the true reason that the DMA supports sending caller-ID along with a junk call is to defeat so-called caller-ID blocking and privacy managers. It seems that consumers, using these products and services, will block calls to their residences that do not have caller-ID, or worse yet, use "privacy managers" (which consumers have to pay monthly for) that force callers to identify themselves before letting the call go though.

By requiring that telemarketers send caller-ID, the FTC has rendered these so-called "blocking devices" useless thus permitting telemarketers to invade even more homes. Is it any wonder that the DMA supports the FTC rule?
A special thanks to Barbara E. for bringing this to our attention.

January 25, 2004

"Most consumers are so confused by the do-not-call rules, and they think that when they register their numbers that it excludes them from all calls. Then, when they get a call from a charity, a political organization or a company they have done business with, they think it's a violation of the law. There hasn't really been much of a problem with previous telemarketing contributors, but the more detached they are from the organization, the greater the confusion, the greater the number of complaints and the poorer the results... Within certain segments on the telemarketing side, results are dropping off so much and the feedback is so negative that it doesn't make sense."

Chip Grizzard, president of direct marketing agency, Grizzard of Atlanta GA, commenting about his company's experience when telemarketing for political or non-profit clients since the national do not call list went into effect. As a result of the law he has had to provide additional training to his agents so that, if the issue arose, they either could direct the person to the Federal Trade Commission's web site that gives them the do not call rules or explain the rules to them directly. From DM News, Nonprofits Face No-Call Fallout Despite Exemption, January 9, 2004. Mr. Grizzard can be reached, toll-free at: (800) 241-9351.

C.A.T.S. Comment: How times have changed. Now we have telemarketers explaining the law to consumers instead of consumers explaining the law to telemarketers! However, the results of these conversations seem to be less and less sales and more and more consumer upset.

Consumer anger with the industry is at an all time high. And to think this could have all been avoided if telemarketers obeyed the laws in the past!

January 18, 2004

"The practical effect is it’s significant when you have this type of commercial speech restriction being upheld by the 8th Circuit and not reviewed by the Supreme Court. This may be viewed as a signal as to the degree of commercial speech restrictions that the court is willing to tolerate. That is the real issue that’s going to come up with the do-not-call list ... whether this case becomes a signpost for the level of restrictions that are tolerable on commercial speech."

Jonathan K. Stock, a lawyer representing Fax.com, commenting on the United States Supreme Court's denial to hear an appeal for his client. Interestingly, Fax.com's web site was temporarily removed from the Internet soon after the decision. The web site has since returned, however their '800' number was disconnected at the time this was posted.

Fax.com has seen its share of bad news lately. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission slapped the company with a $5.4 million fine, the largest telemarketing fine ever imposed by the agency, on complaints of junk-fax rule violations. The FCC said Fax.com violated the TCPA, which bans all unsolicited commercial faxes, on 489 occasions and is subject to fines of $11,000 for each violation.

Other states and individuals have sued Fax.com as well, including California, Idaho and Propel Software CEO Steve Kirsch, who is seeking $2.2 trillion them. From DM News, Supreme Court Declines to Hear Fax.com Case, January 13, 2004. Mr. Stock can be reached at (614) 469-3939.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It looks like Fax.com may leaving town in a big hurry. Expect to see a bankruptcy filing soon, as they probably cannot pay the fines and expected judgements.

We at C.A.T.S. wonder why the FCC didn't move quicker to shut them down and seize their assets. After all, the FCC has done that in the past with pirate broadcasters and ham radio operators that refuse to obey the law. Why not do the same with a fax broadcaster? Could it be that FCC lawyers didn't want to go against a high-power law firm?

The real question for Mr. Stock and his law firm now is: Will they get paid? This whole case will be interesting -- stay tuned.

January 11, 2004

"By adopting a National Do-Not-Call List, we arm American consumers with a powerful tool to protect their privacy. This is one of the most significant things that the FCC has ever done for American families. It will benefit consumers on a daily basis and in a very personal way. It's certainly the thing that people will notice as much as anything else we have done. We're restoring peace and quiet around the dinner table for everyone who asks for it, and plenty will ask, myself included. The public has sent a resounding directive telling us that uninvited telephone solicitations are not merely a distraction but are driving customers away from their phones. Consumers have also made clear that our prior rules - without a national Do-Not-Call List - do not work to their satisfaction"

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, commenting on the FCC's new telephone solicitation rules. From a press release from the FCC, June 26, 2003. Commissioner Adelstein can be reached at (202) 418-2300.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It's nice to see that the FCC has finally got the message that almost everyone hates telemarketing calls. And it's nice to see that there is finally (after over 10 years) some enforcement in this area.

Let's hope that the FCC now takes residential privacy seriously and does something about the wholesale electronic invasion of our homes.

January 4, 2004

"However, combining WLNP (Wireless Local Number Portability) with the FCC’s determination that predictive dialers can not be used to call cell phone numbers means big problems for the industry.

There is currently no commercially available, up-to-date database that contains all wireless numbers (either in use or assigned to wireless service) in the United States. Without such a database, telemarketers have no way to reliably prevent calls made by predictive dialers to cell phones and other wireless devices."

Joseph Sanscrainte, Director of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel for Call Compliance, Inc., a company that provides legal compliance services to telemarketers. From Technology Marketing Corporation's web site, Telemarketing 2004: Survival of the Fittest, December 23, 2003. Mr. Sanscrainte can be reached, toll free, at (888) 674-6774.

C.A.T.S. Comment: While Call Compliance has a high-tech solution for compliance with most telemarketing laws, there is a relatively low-tech solution to this particular problem. Customer Service personnel should be instructed when asking for a customer's phone number to ask if it is a cell phone number. If it is, they should be instructed to put that number on the company's "Do-Not-Call" list.

After C.A.T.S. founder Robert Arkow received a solicitation call on his cell phone from Time Warner Cable, he contacted company executives and suggested that they implement a similar procedure to prevent further violations. Their reaction? Company executives told Mr. Arkow not to tell Time Warner how to run its business. Mr. Arkow's reaction? He sued Time Warner in small claims court and won $500.00.

Quotes from 2003