[CLUE-Talk] Colorado's No-Call List

[Jeffery Cann]

On Saturday 11 May 2002 10:17 am, jbrockmeier at earthlink.net wrote:

> How is it unfair to refuse a business the "right" to tresspass
> on my property? Since I pay for my phone line, I consider
> it my right to refuse anyone the right to call me.

Do you believe you have the right to refuse to have someone ring your 
doorbell?  If you posted 'No Tresspassing' signs in your front yard, then you 
do.  This is equivalent to the 'no call' list -- it is a no tresspass sign.  
BTW - If you check the laws on tresspassing on private property, you'll see 
that 'notification' (i.e., a sign) is a requirement, otherwise it is legal 
for someone to be on your property until you ask them to leave.

Further, you do not own the phone line, the phone company (Qwest) does.  You 
lease its use.  Check your service agreement (note that it is a 'service' 
agreement).  This is a major difference in our laws -- the difference in 
ownership (i.e., property) and not.  Property ownership conveys special 
rights (constitutionally), which you illustrated above.  One of them is the 
right to refuse to be bothered.  Since you don't own your phone lines, you 
are not conveyed the same rights (legally) that you have with your property.
 
> Businesses should have to explicitly get the permission (opt-in) to call
> individuals - not require that they opt-out.

I agree that the solution should have been 'opt in', not 'opt out'.  This was 
not my point in the previous post, but is is the major flaw in the entire 
'solution' of telemarketing.

> This is very unlike banning speech. A business has a right to
> promote its services through advertising in broadcast and print
> mediums, or on its own premises or through direct mail. I don't
> see how this would lead to banning any other business that
> does not depend on trespassing on services that I pay for.

It's not trespassing, since the phone line is not your property.  My point 
about free speech was that a ban on telemarketers is a bias against their 
form of advertising / marketing which is cold calling.  Once you have a bias, 
it is easy to transfer that bias to another situation, much like banning a 
book promotes the same transfer of bias.  It is not really a free speech 
issue, its a bias, sanctioned by the government.

> Unpopular literature sits on the bookstore shelf or in the library
> waiting for someone to come pick it up. No one ties you to a
> chair and forces you to read it, or even comes to your door and
> tries to persuade you to read it. (You may have friends who try
> to persuade you to read unpopular books, but that's another
> story...) Unpopular speech is something you may have to tolerate
> in public, but not in your own home.

If you don't like a TV program or web site (viewed in your home) you can 
always 'opt out' and change the channel, right?  The same with telemarketing. 
 If you really didn't like it, you would disconnect your phone, use only a 
cell phone and never give away your cell number to anyone other than personal 
friends or family.  This is certainly an option, however unrealistic. 

The difference, IMHO, is the folks think they are entitled to use their phone 
line like their other personal property.  The only right you really have with 
using your phone is the right to privacy.  For this, a law enforcement agency 
must seek approval from a court of law.

> Unfortunately "large enough" is a very, very small percentage.
> Because telemarketing is so cheap (like spamming) it doesn't
> require a large number of people to respond for it to be
> considered effective. Particularly when businesses use those
> damn auto-dialers. I'm guessing the percentage of response is
> somewhere under the percentage for direct mail, which is much
> more expensive.

Agreed.  But the only thing you can do is not buy anything yourself and 
suggest to others that they follow your lead.  Fortunately, in our free 
society, you cannot force others to do what you (and I) want --> never buy 
anything from any telemarketer.

Later,
Jeff