December 29, 2002

"Nobody wants to call people who have reasoned out that they don't want calls. But if you do it this way, it can be a knee-jerk reaction to one phone call....

"They can't put the telemarketing business out of business. But they can cost millions of jobs in an economy that can't afford to lose jobs."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) decision to create a national "Do-Not-Call" registry. For information on the FTC's registry click here. From DM News, FTC Rule Changes No Surprise to Telemarketers, December 19, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be reached at: (610) 347-0724 or via e-mail at jhatelemgt@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: This has been a great year for consumers seeking relief from the telemarketing industry. Many states passed strict "Do-Not-Call" list laws this year and the FTC finally got off the fence and announced the creation of a national "Do-Not-Call" list.

We couldn't have done it without industry veterans like Jon Hamilton, and their outrageous and misleading statements in defense of their industry. Is it any wonder that Eileen Harrington, Associate Director of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, for the Federal Trade Commission, said recently that the outbound telemarketing industry did not have a lot of credibility? Rather than present new arguments in the industry's defense, Jon again re-hashes the same old arguments that have proven to fail miserably.

We thank industry veterans like Mr. Hamilton for a banner year in 2002, and wish them a happy 2003. Thank you for your support, we couldn't have done it without you!

December 22, 2002

"I did another press conference this morning, and everybody wanted to sign up. I wasn't even talking about this issue...

"We're not banning telemarketing sales calls. We're giving consumers the option of protecting the privacy of their own homes."

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Timothy Muris commenting at a news conference announcing the fact that the FTC will create a national "Do-Not-Call" registry that most telemarketers will have to use or face large fines. From DM News, FTC Rule Changes No Surprise to Telemarketers, December 19, 2002. Chairman Muris can be reached (via the FTC) at: 202-326-2000. For information on the registry click here.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The FTC has given consumers a true Christmas present: They plan to promote a national "Do-Not-Call" registry to the Congress of the United States. Consumers get a promise of residential privacy in their Christmas stocking, and the telemarketing industry gets a lump of coal in theirs.

Who can we thank for this? Let's start with members of the outbound telemarketing industry itself. Their outrageous and misleading statements through the years have caused the industry to lose creditability, a key factor (C.A.T.S. believes) in the FTC's decision to implement the national "Do-Not-Call" registry.

C.A.T.S. wishes all of the members of the outbound telemarketing industry a very happy holiday season. Santa knows who's been naughty and nice, and we know which category the outbound telemarketing industry falls in!

Merry Christmas to all, and hopefully we can have many silent nights, free from telemarketing calls.

December 15, 2002

"The telephone remains a crucial channel for politicians and political candidates to communicate with their constituents and supporters. 58% of Americans received at least one call during the 2000 elections. Nearly 20% reported receiving between 6 and 10 calls"

From a consumer research report funded by the American Teleservices Association (ATA) and posted on their web site. The study in February/March of 2001 and involved 1,000 consumers. To go to the report click here. The American Teleservices Association can be reached, toll free, at: (877) 779-3974

C.A.T.S. Comment: Another great example of "The great telemarketing lie." They claim that: "The telephone remains a crucial channel for politicians and political candidates to communicate with their constituents and supporters." This so-called "crucial communication" usually consists of pre-recorded phone calls from the politicians to people that registered to vote. Is it any wonder that more and more Americans choose not to register to vote to avoid the barrage of junk mail and so-called "robo-calls?" It turns out that many of the calls violate the telephone consumer protection act because the callers fail to leave an address or phone number where they can be reached.

The calls are "crucial" however to the members of the ATA that make money by providing the technology and equipment to make the calls. To the rest of us, they are just another "junk call" by telemarketers.

December 8, 2002

"Defendant's (DialAmerica's) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is intolerably restrictive. Requiring a consumer to specifically ask to be added to the 'do not call' list on order to stop these calls is inconsistent with the stated philosophy of the Act, which is 'to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights. Expressions of 'not interested' and 'do not call' are simple clear statements that as a matter of law should have been enough to stop repeated phone calls....

"The evidence in this hearing and defendant's efforts to justify continual calls in spite of plaintiff's protestations "do not call again," "not interested," and "do not call," require the court to conclude that defendant willfully and knowingly violated this subsection and the regulations prescribed under this subsection and therefore award an additional $1000 pursuant to 47 USC 227 (b)(3)."

Keven E. McKenny, a Judge of the Superior Court in San Jose, California ruling against DialAmerica on an appeal. DialAmerica hired Bill Raney of the law firm of Copilevitz & Canter, one of the most prestigious law firms in the country, and recognized experts in the field of telemarketing.

The plaintiff was "Cal Girl", a regular user of our bulletin board. (She asked us not to use her real name.)

Judge McKenny can be reached via snail mail at: Superior Court, 191 W. 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. Bill Raney can be reached at: (816) 471-3977 or via e-mail at braney@copilevitz-cantor.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: "Cal Girl" won $2,500.00 against DialAmerica, one of the largest telemarketing firms in the country. She plans to use it to pay for her wedding.

C.A.T.S. proposes a toast to you. With glasses raised, we wish you and your husband joy, prosperity, and many years of happiness. If your marriage is half as successful as your actions in court, you will have a long and happy marriage. May God grant you peace and happiness in all your endeavors.

December 1, 2002

"If the calls don't end, you must defend"

A favorite expression by "SpartanBill", a regular poster on our bulletin board system. (We chose to use his moniker and not his real name to protect his privacy.) Bill has collected over $12,000 against telemarketers. He does however, apologize to Johnnie Cochran, the famous lawyer involved in the O. J. Simpson case for doing an obvious parody of his now famous expression.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Go get 'em Bill! This weekend we had an informal get-together of people on the bulletin board. What we discovered was that a lot of people are taking legal action against telemarketers, and wining in court. We believe that this happens because 1) telemarketers break the law on a regular basis, 2) the information on how to take legal action is available on the Internet, 3) media stories tell of successful lawsuits by private citizens, 4) the fact that judges (like most people) resent what telemarketers do, and are sympathetic to plaintiffs. One judge who we brought a case to wanted a copy of the FCC rulings for himself!

Over the next few months we will be putting together a "package" that will you can download off this site. These FCC rulings and court cases you can use against a telemarketer in court. Stay tuned!

November 24, 2002

"We don't think Americans are going to be tolerant of calls to cell phones"

Direct Marketing Association (DMA) president H. Robert Wientzen commenting about the fact that starting in November 2003, consumers will be able to “port their home number” so that home numbers and cell numbers are interchangeable. Telemarketers will not be able to tell the difference between calls to regular "land-line" phones and cellular phones. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 prohibits marketing calls to cell phones by an automatic dialer. This is part of a general prohibition of calls in which the recipient pays for the call. From Direct Magazine, DMA Offers ‘Interim’ Wireless Service, November 15 2002. Mr. Wientzen can be reached at the DMA headquarters: 212-768-7277.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Wientzen's statement suggests that Americans are tolerant of sales calls to their home phones but not to their cell phones. Get real Robert! What makes you think that Americans are any more tolerant of sales calls to their homes rather than their cell phones? Haven't you read the public's comments posted to the FCC and FTC web sites lately?

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

November 17, 2002

"I hope the federal government will quickly decide one way or the other whether it is going to favor the privacy of the home or telemarketers. Until the federal government gives us the final word about what it wants to do, implementation of my do-not-call program for Californians will be more challenging than it ought to be."

California State Sen. Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont), who sponsored California's DNC list legislation. The State is considering not having a state-wide "do-not-call" (DNC) list if the FCC proposes a "strong" law. From DM News, California Awaits Federal DNC Decision, November 14, 2002. Ms. Figueroa can be reached at: (916) 445-6671 or via e-mail at: Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claims that they want to create a national "do-not-call" list. Who's kidding who? They can't even enforce the current Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that they created in 1992. Now they want to create and enforce a national list? The current situation is so bad that they don't even answer complaint letters anymore.

Do we have to list the colossal failures that the FCC has done in past, such as the citizens radio service (CB), deregulation of the cable industry (your cable rates were supposed to go down, not up), and the unlicensed operation in the various radio services?

The FCC has not issued one penny in fines for live telemarketers who violate the TCPA, even when they caught them. And the law has been in force since December of 1992. Even former California Attorney General Dan Lundgren violated the TCPA while running for Governor by placing automated calls without proper identification! The FCC admitted (in a letter) that he broke the law yet they took no action against him. If not for civil lawsuits, there would be no enforcement at all. And the telemarketing industry knows that all too well.

No Ms. Figueroa, Californians should not depend on a failed federal agency, such as the FCC, for maintaining the telephone privacy of its citizens. You worked hard to get the current law passed. Don't throw your efforts away hoping the FCC will solve the problem, they can't and they won't. As they say in the Nike ads -- Just do it.

November 10, 2002

"Then there are the live telephone calls inviting me to join membership clubs. Of course, I always say no, but it's a pain because weeks later I have to check my bank account and credit card bills to make sure that nobody has made an unauthorized debit of, say, $900.

"It's sad, isn't it? But such annoyances are now part of our daily lives.

"The only reason I don't put myself on TPS [The Direct Marketing Association's Telephone Preference Service list] and all the other do-not-bother lists is that I report on direct marketing for a living and feel I shouldn't cut off the flow of information. But how many people do what I do — maybe 20 in the whole United States? That leaves almost 270 million people who may have little interest in wading through this mass of garbage."

Ray Schultz, Editorial Director of Direct Magazine commenting on the state of telemarketing in the United States today. From The Justice File, Direct Magazine, November 1, 2002. Mr. Schultz can be reached by phone at: (212) 462-3371 or via e-mail at: rschultz@primediabusiness.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Calling telemarketing calls a "mass of garbage" and referring to "do-not-call" lists as "do-not-bother" lists is a brave position for the editor of a magazine that depends partially on revenue from the advertising of telemarketing vendors.

There is no question that the telemarketing industry in the United States is in trouble. Telemarketing vendors in the past threatened to pull their advertising from marketing magazines that published articles or opinions that were negative to the industry.

C.A.T.S. commends you Ray, for your bravery and honesty.

November 3, 2002

"The DMA (Direct Marketing Association), direct marketing spokespeople and telemarketing apologists all recoil in horror at the idea of opt-in.

What are they saying? Well, they’re saying the stuff we sell is so bad, and the way we sell it is so obnoxious, that no one in their right mind would volunteer to be subjected to us. This is one of the most ultimately cynical and self-defeating postures in the history of business"

James R. Rosenfield is the principal of Rosenfield & Associates. He is the author of "Financial Services Direct Marketing" and "The Devil’s Dictionary of Marketing." From Direct Magazine, Hang It up, October 31, 2002. Mr. Rosenfield can be reached via e-mail at jim@jrosenfield.com or via phone at: (858) 597-7426

C.A.T.S. Comment: Great article James. The telemarketing industry has told its lies for so long that they now believe them. Too bad they can't comprehend what you are saying. They could learn a lot.

October 27, 2002

"You occasionally get someone who berates you with a bunch of profanity and that's just awful. That's when the telemarketer is the victim."

Tim Searcy, a new elected member of the Board of Directors of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting to the Washington Post at the Association's National Convention in New Orleans, LA. From the Washington Post, Have We Reached the Party To Whom We Are Speaking? Telemarketers Aren't So Bad. Really. Just Ask 'Em, October 20, 2002. Mr. Searcy can be reached via the American Teleservices Association toll free number: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The telemarketer as a victim? That's the position that the ATA is planning to use when they take the FCC and/or the FTC to court over proposed rules. They see themselves as victims of over regulation and greedy politicians.

In the past, the ATA has suggested that members should get involved in politics. And we have to give Mr. Searcy credit. He's not resting on his laurels one bit. It now appears that he is the campaign manager for a Congressional candidate in Indiana. Brose Mcvey is challenging incumbent Juila Carson for the Seventh Congressional District in Indiana and Mr. Searcy is his campaign manager. (We spoke to Searcy and he did verify this.)

If a person is known by the company that he keeps then candidate McVey has chosen a very interesting person to run his campaign. It's no secret that Searcy and the ATA are opposed to further legislation against the outbound telemarketing industry. We wonder if his opponent, Ms. Carson, is also aware of Mr. Searcy's history?

Indiana has a state wide "do-not-call" list law. When the state first began accepting consumers phone numbers for the list, the lines were jammed. Judging from the massive response to get on the list, it seems that Indiana residents do not like getting telemarketing calls.

While C.A.T.S. never endorses any candidate for office, we can't help but wonder if Mr. McVey is elected to Congress, how will he vote on legislation involving the regulation of the telemarketing industry? McVey's choice of a campaign manager that openly opposes residential privacy laws raises serious concerns for the residents of the Seventh District.

Mr. Searcy can also be reached directly via Brose McVey's Media Office at: (317) 253-3800.

October 20, 2002

"They'd (federal regulators) like to have universal compliance. One way they do it is the deterrent factor"

Richard Capriola of Weinstock & Scavo, a law firm based in Atlanta, GA, speaking at the American Teleservices Association (ATA) 19 annual convention in New Orleans, LA. Capriola urged ATA members to prevent litigation before it happens by ensuring they have strong "do-not-call" (DNC) policies. Also speaking at the convention was James Scavo (also of Weinstock & Scavo), who warned ATA members that the consequences of running afoul of federal regulators can be extreme. While state regulators typically try to work out problems with warnings prior to taking a case to court, federal officials tend to get indictments and injunctions behind the scenes and announce them before their target learns what is going on. From DM News, Lawyers Urge Better Company DNC Policies, October 8, 2002. Mr. Capriola can be reached though the law firm of Weinstock & Scavo at 404-231-3999.

C.A.T.S. Comment: It's funny how life goes. If you sue XYZ Corporation because they do not provide their written DNC policy "upon demand" as the law requires, you may win $500.00 in court. It's most likely that XYZ never had a policy in the first place. After being sued in court, XYZ corporation has now written and (hopefully) implemented a DNC policy. As a result of the lawsuit, XYZ now is better prepared if federal or state regulators later investigate the company.

It turns out that a DNC lawsuit may be the best thing that ever happened to a company. We'll bet that a company would rather lose $500.00 in small claims court as opposed to paying thousands of dollars in fines to federal or state regulators. And let's not forget to mention the embarrassment and bad publicity to the company's reputation when those regulators release the story of those fines to the media in a press release. The cost to the company could be far greater than the fines themselves.

October 13, 2002

"We are busy delivering on the ATA promise to the membership. But it's not an easy task."

Outgoing American Teleservices Association (ATA) chairman Bill Miklas at his farewell speech at the opening general session of the ATA's 19th Annual Convention & Exhibition in New Orleans, LA. He urged his members to "dig deep" into their pockets to support an anticipated legal challenge to a federal no-call registry. The organization plans to challenge the national do-not-call list all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, and the effort will require "significant resources" that surpass the association's annual revenue from dues. From DM News, ATA Asks Members to 'Dig Deep' for DNC Court Fight, October 8, 2002. Mr. Miklas can be reached via the ATA's toll free number: (877) 779-3974 or via e-mail at Bill.Miklas@sitel.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We wish the ATA well in their fight to challenge current and future laws against their industry. But, as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Let's say, for arguments sake, that the ATA wins the mother of all battles with the Supreme Court and they declare all telemarketing laws unconstitutional. Angry consumers will then turn to industry (instead of the government) for a solution.

Phone companies already offer devices that have been successful against telemarketers such as "privacy managers" for a monthly fee. Many people already use their answering machines to filter incoming calls. The commercial success of products like the telezapper shows that consumers will pay for devices to block telemarketer calls.

Without do-not-call lists and other effective consumer protections even more anti-telemarketing devices will flood the market. Filtering devices and call blockers will be as common on store bought telephones of the future as a re-dial button is today. The age of the microprocessor is here, and with mass production the devices will become very cheap. The only consumers telemarketers will be able to reach are the ones that are so poor they can't afford such devices. Of course, these people are not good prospects for telemarketing calls anyway.

While laws can be broken (and history shows that the telemarketing industry does break the laws) filtering and blocking devices are self-enforcing. When you no longer can get through to a majority your prospects, your sales will slump, and the calls will eventually stop.

The fact is that a decision by the Supreme Court to remove the telemarketing laws may be more detrimental to the industry in the long run than just accepting a federal no-call list in the first place. A federal list won't stop charity, political calls, and possibly calls to persons with which you have an "established business relationship"; call blockers and filters will. The ATA needs to re-think this one - for sure.

Good luck ATA in your endeavors, and let us know how you do.

October 6, 2002

"Telemarketing automated messages are filling up my answering machine that I purchased for the purpose of handling important family messages including messages from my aged mother. This problem constitutes theft of service from my private answering machine that is my private property. If I ever suffer severe damages due to this theft of service and blocking of family messages, I will bring civil suit against the telemarketing organizations involved."

Nickolaus E. Leggett, an amateur radio (ham) operator, FCC licensee (call sign N3NL), commenting to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the proposed changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). From the FCC web site, comments of Nickolaus E. Leggett regarding the TCPA, posted September 19, 2002. To view his comments click here. To view all the comments, click here. Mr. Leggett can be reached via e-mail at: nleggett@earthlink.net.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Theft of service? That's an interesting angle. It is already illegal to leave unsolicited pre-recorded messages on an answering machine (unless you have an "established business relationship" with the caller), yet it is done all the time. Not only that, many of the advertisers know it, and thus don't identify who they are (also illegal.)

We received an e-mail several years ago from someone who had an interesting solution. On his voice mail outbound recording he stated, "If you leave a unsolicited commercial message on this device, you will be charged a $500 storage fee do to so. By leaving such a message you agree to pay the fee within 30 days. If you don't want to pay the fee, don't leave the pre-recorded message."

When they called and left the message, he called them back and usually got a voice mail response. So he left a phony name and left his Internet number, (which did not have a voice mail) acting interested in the product or service. When they finally called him back and asked for the phony name, he knew who they were. He then acted interested in the product or service and "sweet talked" them until they finally said who they were (company name, address, etc.)

Once he knew who the company was, he then threatened to sue the company for violating the TCPA as well as for not paying the agreed upon fee (violation of the TCPA, breach of contract, electronic trespass, unjust enrichment). He also demanded a copy of the company's written "Do-Not-Call" policy which is required by the TCPA. At the time we received his letter his method was not tested in court. It seems that all the companies settled out of court rather than trying their luck before a judge.

Go for it Nickolaus, and let us know how you do.

September 29, 2002

"It's yet another indication that the administration has an interest in this (telemarketing regulation). It's not just one guy who happens to be chairman of the FTC. That's kind of scary."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the apparent coordination between the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission, which is expected to issue a ruling on its plans for a national no-call registry in the coming weeks. This has industry members worried that the ongoing federal no-call push stems from a higher authority, possibly even the White House. From DM News, FCC Releases No-Call Proposals, September 23, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be reached at: (610) 347-0724 or via e-mail at jhatelemgt@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The White House? Could it be that some telemarketer actually got through to the Oval Office and tried to sell the President some worthless product or service? Probably not, but in California something similar happened.

It seems that State Senate President Dan Burton (D-San Francisco) blocked for years a state-wide "Do-Not-Call" list bill from becoming law. Then he started receiving telemarketing calls on his cell phone, (a violation of Federal Law). Angered by the fact that the telemarketers would not stop calling, despite his requests, he agreed to let the bill go through. The rest is history, and the law creating a state-wide "Do-Not-Call" list will go into effect in 2003.

We at C.A.T.S. wonder how an industry could make such enemies in high places, when one considers all the money that the industry throws at legislators in the form of campaign contributions. We also wonder what kind of underhanded techniques the industry will use to get around the new laws that those legislators pass. Stay tuned!

September 22, 2002

"Take the proposed national 'do not call' registry that the government will soon foist upon the nation. We already have a national do-not-call policy that is company-specific and has been in effect since 1991. Many states now have their own versions of do-not-call lists. The new proposal replaces none of them. We'll just throw one more meaningless program on the pile to appease the bureaucratic wolves. And they don't work. All of these laws are replete with exemptions for favored entities, giving government, not the marketplace, the right to pick who gets to play ball."

Matt Mattingley, the director of government affairs for the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting about the proposed national "do-not-call" list proposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the regulation of the telemarketing industry in general. From an opinion piece in USA Today, Industry Provides Service, September 17, 2002. To see the complete article click here. Mr. Mattingley can be reached via phone at: (877) 779-3974 or via e-mail at matt@monic.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Mattingley has done a great job of defending his industry. To the average person he presents a reasonable defense which paints the government, and the FTC in particular, as a greedy villain wasting your tax money and taking away your right to choose. Great job Matt.

Unfortunately the reality is quite different. The current laws do not work and rather than rework them, the FTC, like many of the states, proposes a "do-not-call" registry. These laws are effective because they are straightforward and easy to enforce; something the industry hates.

Mattingley has said similar things in the past to any media that will listen. C.A.T.S. is reminded of a politician in the 1930's who was trying to lead Germany at that time, who said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe that lie to be the truth. He called it the big lie technique, and later he became Chancellor of Germany.

Thank goodness that the FTC didn't fall for the industry's "big lies." Is it any wonder that at a recent ATA convention an FTC official told a group of telemarketers that they did not have much credibility.

With stuff like this, we can see why.

Our thanks to Rob M. of Canton, Michigan for the quote.

September 15, 2002

"The protections created by the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) are among the most important activities we undertake. They have the most immediate impact on the public -- and me personally. I reach the limit with the sixth call when I get home."

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner Kathleen Abernathy commenting about the FCC decision to review rules within the TCPA and possibly make changes, including the creation of a national do-not-call (DNC) list. From DM News, FCC Explores National DNC Options, September 13, 2002. Commissioner Abernathy can be reached by telephone at (202) 418-2400 or via e-mail at kabernat@fcc.gov.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Federal Communications Commission has done little in the past to enforce the TCPA, but this may now change.

While C.A.T.S. welcomes FCC actions on this matter we are reminded that the commission has in the past been very slow to react to problems with enforcing its laws and rules. Most of the time they do not even answer their mail. Even renewing a ham radio license with the FCC has become an ordeal.

The technology of intrusion has increased in recent years. Many telemarketers now use technology to get past blocking devices, despite their claim that says: "We don't want to call anyone that does not want to be called." Now commissioner Abernathy claims that the protections afforded by the TCPA are "are among the most important activities we undertake." If this is true, the FCC should at least answer informal complaints filed against violators of the TCPA. C.A.T.S. has unanswered complaints that are over two years old.

The FCC now claims that they want to review the rules and possibly set up a national do-not-call list. Are they serious, or is this just another media press event to deal with an increasingly angry public? Only time will tell.

September 8, 2002

"So the American Teleservices Association wants to mount a legal challenge to the pending do-not-call regulations from the Federal Trade Commission (“ATA Readies DNC Legal Challenge,” Aug. 5). What hypocrites. An industry that has shouted its mantra, “We don’t want to call anyone who doesn't want to be called,” is complaining that it is going to have to abide by those words....

"Adapt or die. The luxury of a third option is gone -- destroyed at the hands of industry representatives hellbent on resisting change. It is a shame the industry has been so poorly served by its leaders."

John Doe*, a consumer privacy activist, commenting in a published letter to the editor of DM News about the current state of the outbound telemarketing industry. From DM News, Letter: Cry Me a River, August 26, 2002.
*We have used the name John Doe because the person has requested that we now not use his real name due to privacy issues.

C.A.T.S. Comment: John*, as usual, you get to the heart of the matter. The current mess that the outbound telemarketing industry finds itself in today can be directly traced to industry leaders such as the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the American Teleservices Association (ATA). Rather than deal with the problems in the industry, these organizations tried to "sweep their problems under the rug" with programs like "Telewatch" and the "Telephone Preference Service" (TPS). As consumers and legislators soon found out, these programs did not solve the problems associated with the outbound telemarketing industry. Now the states and the federal government are beginning to effectively deal with the problems, due to the efforts of organizations like C.A.T.S. and the efforts of thousands of angry consumers.

Now another problem is raising its ugly head. The, so-called "legitimate" telemarketers are failing to tell consumers who really is calling on the phone. In 1995, we sued Bank of America and won a $500.00 judgment against the bank for not fully identifying the party on the other end of the call.

We get our share of telemarketing calls here at C.A.T.S. Some are legitimate, and many are fraudulent calls. In fact, the government tells us that telemarketing fraud is on the rise. Yet despite this fact, we find it interesting that it is becoming harder and harder to tell the "legitimate" calls from the fraudulent calls due to the failure of the "legitimate" companies to fully identify themselves during the call. Oddly enough, full identification for "legitimate" callers is not only in their best interest, it is required by the law as well.

As "legitimate" companies continue to fail to tell us who they really are when they call, consumers will learn to "turn off" all telemarketing calls, both fraudulent and legitimate, because they will sound exactly the same. And as the "legitimate" telemarketers get "lumped in" with the fraudulent operators in the consumers minds, it will be harder and harder for the "legitimate" companies to make sales, due to wary consumers.

And what is the leadership of the industry doing about that? So far, we here at C.A.T.S. see no effort on their part to address the problem. Using the links above, you can visit the industry leadership's web sites and see for yourself. If you find something, let us know by e-mail. We couldn't.

September 1, 2002

"We have advised our clients to cease calling the day before (9/11) and not start up again until Sept. 12. I think it's especially important to put our best foot forward as telemarketers."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the fact that many telemarketers will curtail calling on September 11 this year. From DM News, DMers Not Altering Sept. 11 Mail Plans, but Telemarketers May Call Less, August 12, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Jon, do you really believe that telemarketers are concerned about the image they project? Most telemarketers don't even identify themselves, so how could they be concerned about their "image?" Are you suggesting that one day of sensitivity would make up for all the years of hanging up on consumers when they ask to be put on the "Do-Not-Call" list? Do you believe that 24 hours of no calls can somehow wipe out years of anger and frustration the public has with your industry? Do you believe that showing a little respect for the victims of 9/11 can wipe out all the years of disrespect your industry has shown the public?

Jon, if you believe this, then we here at C.A.T.S. have a bridge in New York City that we would love to sell you.

August 25, 2002

"They (fax.com) need to be put out of business. The sooner, the better."

Barry Himmelstein, an attorney with the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein LLP commenting on a 2.2 trillion dollar lawsuit filed against fax.com, their clients, and its communications provider Cox Communications. The lawsuit seeks $500 per violation committed over the past four years from Fax.com's advertisers and $1,500 per violation from Fax.com itself and its telecommunications provider. From DM News, $2.2 Trillion Legal Action Seeks to Disconnect Fax.com Permanently, August 23, 2002. Mr. Himmelstein can be reach through his law firm at (415) 956-1000.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Fax.com has been breaking the law for years, yet the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seems powerless to stop them. They fined fax.com over 5 million dollars on August 7, 2002, yet fax.com continues to appeal and send out yet more junk faxes. Who knows, maybe this lawsuit will stop them, but we doubt it.

The FCC needs to think smarter, not harder on this one. Many of fax.com's clients (such as cellular companies) have FCC licenses. Since a license is a privilege and not a right, revoking a license is easy to do, since the party has no "right" to it. If the FCC took that kind of action against the customers of junk faxers and other law violators, corporate America would take notice and not allow their products to be marketed in that fashion.

Finally, most phone companies have FCC licenses. These could be put in jeopardy if the FCC rules that the phone companies that provide service to fax.com know what their subscriber (fax.com) is doing and provides service to them anyway. If Pac Bell can remove and refuse service to a obscene caller than they can do the same to a junk faxer, especially if the FCC orders it to do so.

August 18, 2002

"But, to further strengthen customer relationships and build brand loyalty, direct marketers should consider employing outbound teleservices programs to add outreach and value for customers responding to advertisements, Web sites and news reports."

Joan Mullen, vice president of industry relations for Ron Weber and Associates, a telemarketing firm. From DM News, Use Outbound to Build Relationships, May 31, 2002. Ms. Mullen can be reached toll free at (800) 835-6584, ext. 131.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Let us see if we understand exactly what you are saying Ms. Mullen. If people buy a whizbang 2000 from an advertisement in the newspaper, and then receive an unsolicited sales call at home during their dinner, from someone that they do not know, do you think that these calls will "strengthen customer relationships and build brand loyalty" for whizbang 2000?

If you sincerely believe this Ms. Mullen, we at C.A.T.S. have one request: Can we have a sample of what you are smoking?

August 11, 2002

"The [telemarketing] industry's position is, it's ethical to hang up on people."

Bob Bulmash, president of Private Citizen Inc. commenting about how telemarketers use predictive dialers to "over dial" and thus when a person picks up the telephone no one is there, and after a few seconds of dead air they get hung up on. From USA Today, FTC: idea could get telemarketers to stop calling, June 5, 2002. Mr. Bulmash can be reached via Private Citizen's toll free number, (800) CUT-JUNK.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bob Bulmash has been fighting the telemarketing industry since 1988. He sends a list of his members to over 1,700 telemarketing companies and typically they avoid calling his members because his members are schooled in the law and are prone to filing a lawsuit if necessary. Most people report a drop in their telemarketing calls after joining Private Citizen. You can learn more about them by calling (800) CUT-JUNK. To go to their web site click here.

August 4, 2002

"Many years ago, Rolling Stone [magazine] tried a similar tactic to try and get me to renew for several more years before my subscription expired. I actually got so fed up with the calls I didn't renew at all when my sub [subscription] ran out. Of course, the calls just kept on coming so frequently I was beginning to feel like I was being stalked by Jann Wenner. We considered leaving the phone permanently off the hook, but that didn't seem like a reasonable option. Finally, anyone who answered when they called was instructed to say that I had moved away. And gone blind. They still wanted a forwarding number.

Beth Negus Viveiros, executive editor of Direct Magazine commenting about how some telemarketers don't stop calling when you ask them to. From Off The Hook, Direct Magazine, August 1, 2002. Ms. Viveiros can reached via e-mail at bethdirect@aol.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Telemarketing companies often tell their clients that telemarketing is a cost effective method of selling their customers. What they don't tell the clients is the customer backlash that happens as a result of annoying their customers at home. As a result, many people stop dealing with the company altogether.

When a person who is an executive editor for a major direct marketing magazine refuses to continue their subscription to a magazine due to magazine's telemarketing, one has to wonder if other consumers are doing the same thing. Apparently they are.

When a company realizes that they are losing business because they are annoying their customers at home, they will stop calling. So instead of chewing out the telemarketer, why not tell the company your feelings by not buying from them in the future. When the dollars don't come in, they will get the message!

July 28, 2002

"We believe there is a significant likelihood that the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] will ultimately release an unfavorable rule, despite our efforts to communicate the catastrophic effects it will have. Telemarketing is the foundation of the marketing and customer acquisition programs for many U.S. industries. This proposal will severely impact American business."

Jason Clawson, Executive Director of the American Teleservices Association (ATA) commenting about the possible actions of the FTC in regards to the telemarketing industry. From an ATA press release, ATA Considers Options for Do Not Call Possibilities, July 25, 2002. Mr. Clawson can be reached via ATA's toll free number: (877) 779-3974.

The press release can be viewed by clicking here (provided that the ATA keeps it on their web site.)

C.A.T.S. Comment: Oh my gosh! It seems that (according to Mr. Clawson) "This proposal will severely impact American business." He states that ATA has warned the FTC of "catastrophic effects" the proposed FTC rules could have on U.S. industries. Is the sky falling, should we pull our funds from the stock market?

Well, before you yank your investments in Wal-Mart, Sears, and other American businesses, perhaps we should look at (what C.A.T.S. believes) is the "real" reason for the ATA press release. If you look at the web page title assigned to the press release it becomes obvious: "ATA Press Release: Do Not Call Lawsuit." The ATA does say in its press release that it "will consult with major teleservices stakeholders in the near future to review ongoing legislative efforts and evaluate legal options available to the industry. The Association will also be holding discussions with several law firms to clarify the applicable law in this area." But the words "Do Not Call Lawsuit" appears only in the web page title, which typically does not get sent to the media. Outrageous statements like Mr. Clawson's (above) tend to make the outbound telemarketing industry a "victim" for which the only redress is the courts.

Is the ATA planning to sue the FTC if they pass meaningful legislation regulating the outbound telemarketing industry? Well, as they say on the Fox TV News Channel, we report, you decide.

July 21, 2002

"By the time you get around to doing it, [creating a nationwide "Do-Not-Call" list] you're going to put a minimum of 300,000 people back on welfare. Small towns, like Harlan, IA, you're going to wipe them off the map."

Jon Hamilton, a 30 year veteran of the telemarketing industry and president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the FTC's proposal to create a nationwide "Do-Not-Call" list. From DM News, FTC Official Faces Industry Music, June 24, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We did an MSN search on Harlan Iowa, and according to the Iowa workforce page (run by the State of Iowa) there are 6 major employers in Harlan, non of which are listed as telemarketing or teleserevices companies. Harlan has its own airport with a 4100 Ft. runway (big enough for small jets), an auto racetrack with races every Saturday night, as well as a county historical museum. The Harlan Tribune, a newspaper covers the local news. Not bad for a town of 5200 people.

When 30 year veterans of the telemarketing industry make outrageous and irresponsible statements like "Small towns, like Harlan, IA, you're going to wipe them off the map.", it calls their credibility into question. Small towns like Harlan, IA will survive quite nicely if a national "Do-Not-Call" list is put into effect.

As far as the 300,000 people put back on welfare (if you can believe that figure), that works out to 6,000 people per state, a drop in the bucket when it comes to welfare rolls.

Jon, thank you for telling yet another telemarketing lie, and ruining the credibility of your industry, as so many industry leaders have done so in the past. People ask how C.A.T.S. has accomplished so much in the 7 years we have been operating. We couldn't have done it without the efforts of industry spokespersons, like yourself, that make irresponsible and outrageous statements about "value" of their industry. We thank you for your support, keep up the good work!

July 14, 2002

"With mailings, the trafficking in personal information is ethically challenged, but one can at least argue that direct mail revenues help shore up the postal system. There seems to be even less benefit that accrues to the public good from telemarketing. If it’s in the public interest to guide jobless women into telemarketing only because it provides an income, should we expect the DMA [Direct Marketing Association] also to endorse prostitution, as long as it can set up an appropriate membership class for madams?

"Yes, commerce needs a voice. But its right to communicate shouldn’t be at the cost of private individuals’ rights."

Bob Karl, President, New Customer Acquisition, commenting on the DMA's position on the eve of the Federal Trade Commission's public forum on creating a national "Do-Not-Call" list. From DM News, letters to the editor, Letter: Commerce’s Right to Communicate Shouldn’t Be at the Cost of Individuals, June 24, 2000. Mr. Karl can be reached via e-mail at: bobk@postage-exempt.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Great comment Bob, we can't top this one!

July 7, 2002

"The fact is, the consumers are paying for their telephones — and telemarketers are helping themselves to it. Telemarketers saying this is a First Amendment issue is like graffiti artists claiming they have the right to spray graffiti on your house. They have the right to spray it on their own house. But not on something I pay for. Telemarketing is the most despised form of solicitation in the country."

Jason Catlett, an attorney and president of the consumer group Junkbusters©, commenting to USA today about the state of telemarketing in the United States today. He made these comments before testifying before the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) hearings regarding forming a national "do-not-call" list. From USA Today, FTC idea could get telemarketers to stop calling, June 5, 2002. Catlett can be reached via his web site by clicking here.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What a great analogy Jason. And just like graffiti artists, telemarketers now are refusing to identify themselves for fear of being sued.

As the industry continues to violate laws, consumers will continue to pressure their legislators to deal with the problem. Graffiti became a problem in the late 60's and as legislators attempted to stop it, the penalties became more severe. Today it is not unusual to see jail time given to repeat offenders. Some state laws now propose the same for telemarketers as well.

If a graffiti artist is not allowed to have a spray can while in jail then why does the law allow a telemarketer, when arrested, to make one phone call? After all, isn't that is why he is in jail in the first place?

June 30, 2002

"You don't have a lot of credibility, to be perfectly honest, This industry [telemarketing] since 1995 has had a chance to make a company-specific do-not-call system work. This is an industry that was given more than an inch and has taken more than a mile."

Eileen Harrington, Associate Director Marketing Practices Bureau of Consumer Protection, for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). She was commenting to a group of 50 telemarketing industry leaders at the DMA (Direct Marketing Association) Teleservices Conference for 2002, held at the Breakers Hotel in Palm Beach, Florida.

She blamed the industry for their current problems, claiming that if telemarketers had adhered to the present rules, which give each company one shot at each consumer and require them to honor all DNC (do-not-call) requests, a national DNC list would not be under discussion by the Federal Trade Commission.

Harrington also told them that in her own personal experience she was aware that telemarketers often try to circumvent the rules by hanging up when consumers ask to be placed on their DNC lists, or by denying that their calls are for sales purposes, then trying to make a sale. She went on to say that technologies, such as predictive dialers, are being abused as well.

From DM News, FTC Official Faces Industry Music, June 24, 2002. Ms. Harrington can be reached via phone at: (202) 326-3127.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Our hats are off to you Ms. Harrington. It took a lot of guts to enter a den of over 50 telemarketing leaders and tell the truth about the industry.

We are sure that the industry gave you the usual crap such as 'We don't want to call people that don't want to be called etc.' but you didn't waiver.

C.A.T.S. salutes you for telling the telemarketing industry just what it does not want to hear; the truth about how the industry breaks the law and abuses the people that they constantly call.

June 23, 2002

"The landscape is shifting. Everybody is trying to move toward inbound [teleservices] and toward the whole concept of CRM. Because of that, the industry is growing."

Jon Hamilton, a 30-year veteran of the teleservices industry, commenting on the current state of the industry at the opening of the Direct Marketing Association's (DMA) 2002 Teleservices conference. From DM News, Speakers: Teleservices Agencies Face Rising Pressures, June 20, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Hamilton is telling just what is happening to the outbound telemarketing industry: its dying. The fact is that today it is harder to make a buck in the outbound telemarketing industry due to customer resistance, tougher laws, government run "Do-Not-Call" lists, consumer lawsuits, and a plethora of screening devices. such as the telezapper and privacy manager.

As this trend continues, many fortune 500 companies have simply 'given up' on outbound telemarketing as a revenue source.

As consumers, we must continue the battle against this wholesale invasion of privacy, by continuing to do what we have done. It seems that despite the millions of dollars the telemarketing industry spends on lobbyists and political contributions to legislators, laws in various states and the federal government are being passed at a furious pace.

By asking to be put on 'Do-Not-Call' lists, demanding copies of the telemarketer's 'Do-Not-Call' policies, we waste their time and their money. As the cost of telemarketing goes up, the number of calls will go down.

June 16, 2002

"So in order to avoid this next wave of technology-assisted customer service and the potential of receiving yet another form of junk advertising, I'll stay away from wireless devices. I get enough junk in my mail and e-mail boxes."

Angela Karr, Editor-In-Chief of Customer Interface (formerly Teleprofessional) magazine), explaining why she does not have a cellular phone (or other wireless devices). From her editorial, Not 100% Accessible, Customer Interface Magazine, June 1, 2002. Ms. Karr can be reached at (319) 984-6799.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Telephone Consumer Protection act makes it illegal to call cell phones for the purposes of telephone solicitation. Earlier this year we sent a press release to Ms. Karr (via Customer Interface Magazine), after we were successful in court against Time Warner Cable for placing a telephone solicitation to a cellular phone. In November 1997, when she was managing editor of Teleprofessional Magazine she wrote about this web site saying "I invite you to click on the professional plaintiff’s' very own web site and see if you aren’t slightly nauseated by their ability to skew facts." Not surprisingly, she and her magazine ignored our story.

Customer Interface Magazine claims to be "a business management resource for senior & mid-level decision-makers who are responsible for call centers, customer contact, and CRM initiatives" and that they are "stewards for the industry."

You would think that a few "senior and mid-level decision-makers" would like to know about this law (and successful court action), so they could avoid practices that could land their companies in court. Obviously Ms. Karr, and Customer Interface Magazine, are still unaware of this law, despite our efforts to "educate" them.

Frankly Ms. Karr, your readers deserve better.

June 9, 2002

"The government wants to put our industry [telemarketing] out of business. They can't legislate it out of existence. So they are proposing regulations so onerous, difficult and expensive that it would be impossible to comply."

Matt Mattingley, director of government affairs for the American Teleservices Association, commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposal to create a national "Do-Not-Call" list. From USA Today, FTC idea could get telemarketers to stop calling, June 5, 2002. Mr. Mattingley can be reached, toll free, at (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: According to Mr. Mattingley, the FTC's proposals are "regulations so onerous, difficult and expensive that it would be impossible to comply." Now lets look at these so called "onerous, difficult, and expensive" regulations.

The FTC is proposing a national "Do-Not-Call" list. According to the American Teleservices web site (www.ataconnect.org) telemarketers already maintain their own "Do-Not-Call" lists. So the FTC proposal would require them to add the numbers from the FTC's list on to their own list.

One of the results of the FTC's proposed action would be that telemarketers would not be calling people who would be on the FTC's list. It is a sure bet that those people who take the time to put themselves on the FTC's list are not good prospects for telemarketing calls. The end result may be that telemarketers would actually SAVE money because they would not be calling people who would not buy their products or service.

Mr. Mattingley is no dummy when it comes to telemarketing regulations. We at C.A.T.S. think that statements like "they are proposing regulations so onerous, difficult and expensive that it would be impossible to comply", are nothing more than 'crying wolf'.

Mr. Mattingly is an expert in the telemarketing industry. Surely he could do better than that.

June 2, 2002

"It is now an incontrovertible rule that these transformed call centers, often referred to as customer contact centers, can boost sales and cement customer loyalty through more personalized service. For many companies, the call center has been transformed from a cost center to a profit center."

C. Tyler Prochnow, an attorney with Lathrop & Gage, Kansas City, MO, who specializes in teleservices law, talking about the pending legislation(s) against the telemarketing industry. From DM News, Get Involved in Pending Legislation, May 29, 2002. Mr. Prochnow can be reached via e-mail at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Prochnow, carries on the fine tradition of outbound telemarketing industry by redefining words in order to confuse legislators and consumers.

We used to call annoying sales calls "telemarketing" calls. Now the industry refers to "telemarketing" calls as both inbound and outbound calls in order to confuse legislators and consumers. The telemarketing industry then redefined what they do as the "call center industry." When people got wise to that term, the industry then redefined what they do as "customer contact centers." They used to tell consumers that the outbound calls were "courtesy calls." When consumers got wise to that term, the industry redefined the calls as "customer outreach calls." Even the "American Telemarketing Association" changed its name to the "American Teleservices Association, to further confuse consumers and legislators." We often call these redefinitions as "the great telemarketing lie."

It is no secret that legislation against the industry you represent is passing at a furious pace. It is clear that using deceptive terminology is not going to solve the industry's problems. Perhaps if the (outbound) telemarketing industry quit using deceptive terms, the legislators in this country would take the industry more seriously. As a lawyer, it is your responsibility to tell your client(s) to be honest, and tell the truth. Instead of writing articles that promote such deceptive terms about the industry you represent, you should set an example and not use such terms, and instruct your clients to do the same. Such actions, in the end, will regain the creditability that your industry seems to have lost in recent years. Let's face it--what the industry is doing now to avoid legislation just isn't working.

May 26, 2002

"I do apologize for the delay in getting this [Bank of America's written 'Do-Not-call' policy] to you. I am investigating why it took so long to get a copy and plan to work on correcting the situation. Thank you for pointing out this issue so that we can come more fully into compliance with the TCPA."

Kathryn D. Kohler, assistant general counsel for Bank of America commenting on the bank's failure to provide a copy of their written "Do-Not-Call" policy. We requested a copy of the policy on July 21, 2000. Our request was answered (with a letter containing the above statement) on September 7, 2000.

C.A.T.S. founder Robert Arkow sued Bank of America in 1995 for failing to provide a copy of the bank's written "Do-Not-Call" policy as required by law. The judge in the case said "I can find no authority for the delay of the bank in turning over the policy in response to a demand." In that case the bank took 5 weeks to provide it's written policy. The complete decision can be seen here. Bank of America's legal department can be reached at: (704) 386-1621.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We were going to sue the bank (again) in September, 2000 for violating the law, but after discussions with their staff we decided not to since the bank promised to comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). We took their word at face value and gave them the benefit of the doubt.

On March 22, 2002 we asked the Internet banking division of B of A to put our number on their "Do-Not-Call" list and asked for their "Do-Not-Call" policy as required by law. So far they have ignored our request. So much for their promises of almost two years ago! Will C.A.T.S. have to (again) sue Bank of America? Stay tuned.

May 19, 2002

"More than anything else I want to make sure that the activities of these telemarketers stop."

Judge Gary Michael Block of the Harris County, Texas, Civil Court commenting during his ruling against Lonestar Utility Savers Incorporated. Lonestar called consumer Joe Shields several times with pre-recorded messages, even after Shields told them to stop. Lonestar's defense for the excessive calls is it was having technical problems. The judge was not impressed with that argument and ruled against Lonestar for $5,000.

And the telemarketer in this case gets a taste of his own medicine. The president of Lonestar Utility Savers was ordered by the judge to put his home phone number as the call-back number on all future solicitations.

From KRTK Channel 13 News, Houston, Texas, Don't call me, I'll sue you. Battling telemarketers can bring you peace -- and big bucks, air date May 7, 2000. Joe Shields can be reached via his web site at: http://antitele.home.texas.net.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We at C.A.T.S. love the way that Texans enforce their laws. Texas state Representative Burt Solomons, sponsor of the recently passed "Do-Not-Call" list law there, was quoted as saying that if it were up to him, telemarketers would be shot. Now a judge has ordered a telemarketer to give his home phone number as a call back number. How creative! California could learn a lot from Texas.

With consumer advocates like Joe Shields in the Lone Star State and the attitude of Texas judges and legislators, we can only give the following advice to telemarketers who call residences there: Don't Mess With Texas.

May 12, 2002

"We continue to believe that abandoned calls -- that is, calls that are answered by an individual and then disconnected by the dialer because no agent is available -- are a nuisance (at best) and the cause of fearful apprehension (at worst.) On the other hand, we also recognize that responsible companies strive to avoid abandoned calls since they represent lost sales opportunities."

Statement made from a draft decision by Commissioner Geoffrey Brown of the California Public Utilities Commission. The Commissioner is proposing to set the maximum allowable abandonment rate for predictive dialers used in outbound telemarketing to 3 percent as of July 1, and reduce that limit to 1 percent starting Jan. 1, 2003. According to the draft decision, the commission will require telemarketers to keep records of how many calls they abandon. The records will be used to enforce the rule. From DM News, California Utilities Commission Proposes 1% Abandonment Rate by Jan. 1, May 10, 2002. Commissioner Brown can be reached at: (415) 703-1407.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Wake up Commissioner Brown! Do you think that telemarketers that break the law will willingly give you the abandonment records so you can convict them?

A zero % abandonment rate is much easier to enforce. When a company abandons a call the law is broken...period. Under your proposal, you will depend on the honesty of the telemarketing company to provide honest, accurate records if the PUC suspects a violation.

Perhaps you should investigate the credibility of the outbound telemarketing industry. Their mantra is "We don't want to call anyone who does not want to be called." This has been said time and time again by industry executives. Yet they continue to call people that have told them to stop calling them. We have helped many consumers file successful lawsuits against telemarketers for calling them after they have requested them to stop. Many of the telemarketers that we have faced in court have "no record" of the calls to plaintiff's homes, yet the plaintiffs can provide the dates, times, and name(s) of the callers who called! That's why the telemarketers lose in court.

It seems to us that the PUC is writing a law that will be easily violated by an industry that has a severe creditability problem, and as usual, California consumers will be cheated out of their privacy rights, yet again.

May 5, 2002

"So, yes, we support the idea of a national do-not-call list, whether it comes from the FTC, the FCC or any other governmental body that has the appropriate jurisdiction."

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis commenting on his firm's support of the Federal Trade Commission's proposed national do-not-call list in a speech before the National Privacy Conference on March 21, 2002. From DM News, CEO's Stance on National DNC List Puzzles Some, March 25, 2002.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis claims that his bank supports a national "Do-Not-List" and other regulations. Sounds good so far--but in 1995 Bank of America was sued by C.A.T.S. founder Robert Arkow for violation of FCC rules. The court found that Bank of America failed to provide a copy of their written "Do-Not-Call" policy in a reasonable manner as well as properly identify during the call, as required by Federal Law and FCC rules. (To view the court's decision. click here.) Mr. Lewis can be reached via Bank of America's corporate affairs department at 410-547-5869

Bank of America continues to violate FCC rules. A recent request by a consumer for the Bank's written "Do-Not-Call" policy was, again, ignored. (The consumer is considering a lawsuit against the bank at this time.)

Its easy for a bank CEO to stand before a privacy group and say that his bank supports privacy laws. Its harder to actually get the bank to obey the laws that one claims to support.

April 28, 2002

''There are a number of anti-telemarketing groups. This is America. They're certainly free to do and express what they feel their views are ... but do they make an impact on the business? No.''

Matt Mattingley, director of government affairs for the American Teleservices Association (ATA), commenting on Tom Mabe's latest prank against the telemarketing industry at the ATA's Washington D.C. convention. Tom called the conference attendees in the middle of the night offering to sell them a sleep aid and pretending he was calling on behalf of the ''Telemarketers with Insomnia Foundation.'' None of the people who picked up the phone were amused, with most hanging up and calling him a jerk. From an Associated Press story, Kentucky comedian crashes telemarketing convention, April 22, 2002. Mr. Mattingley can be reached via ATA's toll-free number: (877) 779-3974.

C.A.T.S. Comment: My; my; my; Mr. Mattingley, you say that the anti-telemarketing groups have not had an impact on your business? Have you checked prices on the outbound telemarketing stocks lately?

The tobacco industry used to say the same thing about the anti-smoking groups, and look what happened.

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

April 21, 2002

"I work for DialAmerica Marketing (telemarketing) and I DO support the do not call list. The reason I am writing is because my employer is MAKING all of it's employees (an least in the Buffalo branch) write to you to oppose the list. I believe this is very wrong to force employees to write to you. I was the only person in my brach who refused to write to you opposing the idea. I am so discusted with this that I have found another job and will be putting my two weeks notice in this week. I just want to give you my full support. I hope this bill goes through, it gives people the chance to choose if they want to receive telemarketing calls. Thank you. David Georger "

David Georger's public comments on the proposed changes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is considering, including the creation of a national "Do-Not-Call" list. His comments were posted on March 18, 2002. All public comments made to the FTC are posted on their web site. To view the comments of Mr. Georger as well as other Dial America employees click here and enter "Dial" as a last name in the search engine.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Dial America will probably claim that this is a "disgruntled employee" that was simply getting back at the company, and that no such campaign exists. But hold on! If one looks at the posts of other Dial America employees, they seem to all be from the same script! And in checking further it seems that other telemarketing companies are using the same script as well! If one does a search for "Sitel" they will find that the comments, by persons claiming to be Sitel employees, are almost the same, word for word as the ones that claim to be employees of Dial America!

It seems that the telemarketing industry is now "encouraging" its employees to post comments to the FTC which may not be their own. This activity speaks volumes about the industry's ethics.

Dial America can be reached, toll free, at: (800) 913-3331.

April 14, 2002

"The invasion of our members' privacy by Melissa's recorded message goes too far."

Mark Carlton, a member of the Screen Actors Guild's (SAG) Hollywood board, commenting on the board's vote to censure SAG union president Melissa Gilbert for conducting a prerecorded telemarketing campaign to lobby members prior to a controversial referendum vote.

Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls on the television series "Little House on the Prairie," taped a message urging members to vote in favor of a franchise agreement with the Association of Talent Agents. The message was delivered to members at their homes.

The board voted 19-6 to condemn Gilbert's "bad judgment" in her use of the personal phone numbers of union members. From DM News, 'Little House' Star's Phone Campaign Angers Union Board, April 12, 2002. Mr. Carlton can be reached via the Screen Actors Guild Hollywood office at (323) 954-1600.

C.A.T.S. Comment: The Screen Actors Guild calls the using of their members' personal phone numbers "bad judgment", and an "invasion of privacy." Corporate America, which uses many SAG members as "celebrity spokespersons" often does exactly the same thing by telemarketing us at our homes.

Perhaps this incident will raise the level of consciousness of SAG members when it comes to consumer privacy. If celebrity actors refuse to endorse companies that abuse customers' private (and often unlisted) phone numbers in a similar manner, perhaps the companies would not engage in similar behavior and respect our privacy.

April 7, 2002

"Regardless of who administers it [statewide 'Do-Not-Call' lists], it still amounts to an administrative nightmare trying to integrate all those state-specific lists into your calling program."

C. Tyler Prochnow, an attorney at Lathrop and Gage, Kansas City, MO, where he specializes in teleservices law, commenting about all the different state "Do-Not-Call" lists that telemarketers have to purchase and use when calling residences around the country. From DM News, State Bills Are in Bloom This Spring, March 25, 2002. Mr. Prochnow can be reached via e-mail at: tprochnow@lathropgage.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Robert Bulmash of Private Citizen Inc. provides a service to consumers to get them on company-specific "Do-Not-Call" lists. He currently mails their "Do-Not-Call" requests to over 1900 companies. If a consumer wanted to avoid telemarketing calls he would have to contact over 1900 companies himself. Certainly this is an "administrative nightmare" far greater than having to contact just 50 states.

March 31, 2002

"There's been a tremendous amount of public comment. Based on the number of comments, there's a belief that people may need more time to get in their comments, and we're doing that."

FTC [Federal Trade Commission] spokesman Mitchell Katz commenting to DM News about the response that the FTC on its proposed national "Do-Not-Call" list. The FTC has already received more than 21,000 comments via e-mail. The messages, the majority of which have come from members of the public in support of the national DNC list, have been posted on-line in the DNC section of the FTC's Web site, www.ftc.gov. Only the subject of smokeless tobacco has had a higher response. From DM News, FTC Extends DNC Comment Period to April 15, March 28, 2002.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Wow! We have often said that the battle against telemarketing would not be won in the nations courtrooms, but in the court of public opinion. The telemarketing industry may hire high-dollar constitutional lawyers to argue first amendment issues relating to telemarketing, but in the end, this will not help them in the long run.

Help us fight back by posting your comments on the FTC's web site at www.ftc.gov before April 16. While your comments will be posted, your privacy will be protected, No e-mail addresses or phone numbers of individual commenters will be posted.

March 24, 2002

"We in the catalog industry have worked hard to create a bond of trust with our customers. We work hard to improve everything we can: product quality, shipping time, satisfaction guarantees, etc. We can only wonder about telemarketers whose meager accomplishments seem to include predictive dialers and untrained scriptreaders. I want to distance my industry from telemarketers. Don’t you?"

Michael A. Schwartz, founder of babyshoe.com commenting about telemarketers in a letter to the editor of DM News. Mr. Schwartz can be reached via e-mail at messages@babyshoe.com or by telephone toll free at (800) 543-8566. From DM News, Letter: Catalogers Work to Create Bond of Trust With Customers, March 11, 2002.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Even people in the direct marketing industry do not want to be associated with telemarketers! Can you think of one group of people that want to be associated with telemarketers? If you can, send us an e-mail. We'd love to hear your thoughts!

March 17, 2002

"We should have the right to determine if we want to be called by telemarketers. My bill is simple. It creates a national do-no-call list. Those who do not want to be interrupted by unwanted calls will now have the opportunity to avoid all telemarketing calls. The public deserves to have this choice."

Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-Connecticut) commenting about the bill that she introduced (H.R. 3911) in Congress called the Telemarketing Relief Act of 2002. This bill creates an all inclusive nationwide "Do-Not-Call" list. The current law proposed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) only covers industries that the FTC has jurisdiction over. Ms. Johnson's bill would include industries not covered by the FTC proposal. Congresswoman Johnson can be reached via her web site or by phone at: (860) 223-8412.

C.A.T.S. Comment: What's this? A Republican introducing an anti-telemarketing bill! That's right! The GOP, the pro-business, family values, conservative party has finally jumped on the anti-telemarketing bandwagon when it comes to calls that invade our homes daily. For example, in Kentucky, the state legislature was considering removing many of the exemptions in their current "Do-Not-Call" list bill. The Democrats accused the Republicans of being soft on telemarketing. The result was a legislative "free for all" and when the smoke cleared even the Democrats thought the bill went to far!

We welcome Republicans into the anti-telemarketing movement. It makes sense that the party of "family values" would encourage a quiet night at home free of the unwanted intrusions. We're glad to have you aboard!

March 10, 2002

"And what is my advice as a loyal adviser to the [telemarketing] industry and a believer in commercial free speech?

"Give it up, because this is one fight we are going to lose.

"Why do I feel this way? I have spent 13 years handling tough consumer issues, but none has been as stubborn and enduring as telemarketing."

MARTY ABRAMS commenting on how the telemarketing industry is trying to fight the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Mr. Abrams is executive director of the Center for Information Policy Leadership at the law firm of Hunton & Williams, Atlanta. From Direct Magazine, The Wrong Fight, March 1, 2002. Mr. Abrams can be reached via Hunton & Williams at: (404) 888-4000 or via e-mail at: mabrams@hunton.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Abrams gives good advice to an industry obviously in deep trouble. Yet the telemarketing industry continues to fight legislation by the federal and state governments. They are doing the same thing that the tobacco companies did a few years ago. Remember when they were fighting laws and lawsuits at a furious pace and getting nowhere?

At least the tobacco companies got smart. They settled their differences with the government and are now trying to repair their public image.

We at C.A.T.S. wonder when the telemarketing industry will get smart and do the same thing? Or are we going to hear yet another round of their spokesmen saying "We don't want to call anyone that does not want to be called." Kinda sounds like "Nicotine isn't addictive" doesn't it?

March 3, 2002

"This cataloger can’t wait for the ban to happen! We will never do telemarketing. It is rude, intrusive and maddening! When I’m at home, I can’t stand running for the phone only to get a hang-up.

"For that matter, I resent any company selling my name, address, phone number or e-mail address. How dare they violate my privacy that way! ... I will do business with whom I choose to do business. I’m the first person to throw out ‘junk mail.’ Yes, that’s what most of it is. It’s unsolicited and unwanted and unnecessary. And, by the way, my company doesn't sell private information either, and we state that proudly in both our print and on-line catalogs.

"I [don’t] see a contradiction in a direct marketer who chooses to do business in a fair, open and honest way -- one who chooses to protect the privacy of her customers, not abuse the information I’m given. If more of us spoke out against some of the questionable practices in our industry, we would have a more honorable industry."

Wendy Lazar, president of Glendale Industries, a small parade merchandise company in Northvale, NJ, is criticizing the industry over its fear of a ban on predictive dialers, and other practices of the direct marketing industry. From DM News, Editorial: Best Practices, February 25, 2002. Ms. Lazar can be reached via her web site, www.paradestore.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Bravo Ms. Lazar! We salute you! Finally a direct marketer who "gets it." If all marketers had your attitude, the direct marketing industry would not have the problems it faces today. We spoke to Ms. Lazar last week and she is truly committed to her customers. Her company, Glendale Industries, sells uniforms and accessories for parades.

C.A.T.S. salutes you, Ms. Lazar. We know how much "flack" you are probably getting from your colleagues in the direct marketing industry. It requires great courage to take the position that you are taking.

February 24, 2002

"The industry is allowing the public to see this as a nuisance issue, not as a commerce issue. I can't believe that getting a call during dinner is as dangerous for the country as losing 3 million jobs."

Sandy Pernick, president of S. Pernick & Assoc., a Chicago-based teleservices consulting firm. Ms. Pernick claims that the use of predictive dialers dramatically increases call center efficiency. A ban on predictive dialers would make many telemarketing campaigns unfeasible, and jobs would be lost. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is proposing that the "dead air" (and hang-up calls) that consumers get when a telemarketer calls with a predictive dialer is a violation of law. This would effectively ban the use of predictive dialers. From DM News, FTC Predictive Dialer Ban Feared, February 4, 2002. Ms. Pernick can be reaced via telephone at her firm, S. Pernick & Associates, at (847) 256-0115.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Ms. Pernick pulls the "jobs" card in defense of her industry. What she doesn't say is that many of todays telemarketing jobs are being shipped off shore to other countries, as the cost of long distance telecommunication drops due to technology advances.

We talked to her last week and we disagree with her analysis of the situation. If you make telemarketing less efficient by banning the predictive dialers, then you will need more telemarketers to do the same job. It very well may be that the industry will need more, not less telemarketers, as a result of this law.

During our conversation with her, she bashed what we do on this web site, and suggested that we try to work with the industry, instead of being against it. For the record, Ms. Pernick, we have tried to do just that, and our attempts have been ignored.

As is often the case, we respect, but disagree with the statements made by members of the outbound telemarketing industry. And, as always, we do post the responses from those chosen to be the "Quote Of The Week." May we have yours Ms. Pernick?

February 17, 2002

"We're [the outbound telemarketing industry] tired of being unpopular. Let's do a better job of communicating what we contribute."

Jim Conway, vice president of government affairs for the Direct Marketing Association (DMA). From DM News, Industry Balks at Paying for National DNC [Do-Not-Call] List, February 11, 2002. Mr. Conway can be reached via the DMA's web site at www.the-dma.org or via the DMA's main phone number: (212) 768-7277.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Mr. Conway just doesn't get it. The public does not want to hear how the outbound telemarketing industry "contributes" to our lives. In fact, the industry do would themselves more good if they did not "communicate" at all to consumers.

What part of "do not call" don't you understand, Mr. Conway?

February 10, 2002

"If one good thing comes out of the FTC's [Federal Trade Commission's] push for a national DNC ['Do-Not-Call'] list, it may be that the telemarketing industry will finally 'get its head out of the sand' and deal with the problems that have given it a bad name."

Jon Hamilton, president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the FTC's proposal to create a nation wide "Do-Not-Call" list. From DM News, FTC: National DNC List Coming by Early 2003, January 23, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Good thought Mr. Hamilton, it would be nice if the industry dealt with the problems that have given it a bad name, but the reality is that the industry will make little effort to do just that. Companies like AOL Time Warner, Bank of America, Household International, and other mega-corporations depend on their high-priced lawyers and lobbyists to "bend" the laws and protect them from further regulation.

Almost every issue of DM News (and other media as well) have articles about corporations entering into settlement agreements with regulatory bodies for large sums of cash, yet the corporations will admit no wrongdoing.

Until the telemarketing industry (and the individual telemarketers themselves) take responsibility for their actions, it may very well be that the only ones that will profit from the proposed legislation will be the high-priced Washington D.C. lawyers and lobbyists hired by the industry.

February 3, 2002

"Obviously, the biggest headache will come when complying with the FTC’s [Federal Trade Commission's] list ['Do-Not-Call' list], the Direct Marketing Association’s Telephone Preference Service list and those ever-multiplying individual state lists. Now, the DMA wants to create a watchdog committee to reduce unethical telemarketing activities among its members. Not sure why. Anyone doing unethical telemarketing probably isn’t a DMA member in the first place."

Tad Clarke, editor in chief of DM News commenting on the Federal Trade Commission's proposal to create a national "Do-Not-Call" list. From DM News, Editorial: Why Fight the Inevitable?, January 28, 2002. Mr. Clarke can be reached via e-mail at tad@dmnews.com or by phone at: (212) 925-7300

C.A.T.S. Comment: Not so fast Mr. Clark, there are plenty of DMA members breaking the law when it comes to telemarketing. An example is AOL Time Warner. On July 28, 2000, AOL was fined $5000.00 by a California Judge for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and on January 4, 2002, another California judge found that Time Warner Cable placed a telephone solicitation to a cellular phone in violation of the TCPA, and fined them $500.00. In fact, we offered the story to DM News, but you chose not to print it. And despite the fine and the judgment, Time Warner Cable had no plans to block cellular numbers from its telemarketing list, and continues to break the law to this day!

AOL Time Warner is a DMA member, as well as an ATA member. In fact, Katrina Wells, an AOL manager, sits on ATA's board of directors!

Before you make statements like "Anyone doing unethical telemarketing probably isn’t a DMA member in the first place.", you really should get the facts. Frankly, Mr. Clarke, your readers deserve better.

January 27, 2002

"What the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] wants to do is no boon. What the FTC wants to do is make it so simple to opt out that very many people will do so. Clearly, the mission of the FTC seems to be to eliminate telemarketing."

Jon Hamilton, president of JHA Telemanagement Inc., commenting about the FTC's proposal to create a nation wide "Do-Not-Call" list. From DM News, FTC: National DNC List Coming by Early 2003, January 23, 2002. Mr. Hamilton can be contacted at (610) 347-0724.

C.A.T.S. Comment: If the telemarketing industry had obeyed the law and stopped calling people that had requested to be left alone, the FTC would have not had to consider this proposed legislation. We have heard time and time again the industry's mantra: "We don't want to call anyone that doesn't want to be called." Yet, even after we tell telemarketers to stop calling, they continue to do so.

If the industry really doesn't want to call people that do not want to be called, then why does Mr. Hamilton complain that opting out is too easy under the proposed law? It seems to us that telemarketers would welcome this law, since those people that do opt out are clearly not good prospects for telemarketing calls.

Mr. Hamilton: What level of difficulty would you like consumers to go through to opt out? We would love to hear your answer on this one.

January 20, 2002

"Perhaps our largest challenge this year will be legislation. The industry is facing legislation from the 50 states and the federal government. The ATA [American Teleserivces Association] remains dedicated to defending the industry's interests and communicating our business needs. We will be as active as our limited resources allow. Our national staff, however, cannot possibly monitor every emerging legislative issue in the 50 states and the federal government. We simply do not have the manpower - nor do most other associations."

Jason Clawson, Executive Director of the American Teleservices Association (formerly the American Telemarketing Association) commenting about the challenges ahead for telemarketers, and his association. From the American Teleservices Association web site, January 16, 2001. Mr. Clawson can be reached toll free at (877) 779-3974 or via e-mail at jason@monic.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: While Mr. Clawson tells his members that the largest challenge this year will be adverse legislation, we at C.A.T.S. see it differently. The largest challenge facing the outbound telemarketing industry will be changing their image, so that legislators will not pass more laws against their business. The wide-spread, continuing violations of telemarketing laws, documented in the media and by frustrated citizens as well, drive the legislators to pass more laws and rules against this business.

Perhaps the greatest challenge will be to force ATA members to obey the law, and to kick out those ATA members who refuse to do so. This would change the image of an association that has lost creditability with lawmakers and the general public as well.

ATA could start with AOL Time Warner, a company that refuses to provide their written "Do-not-call" policy until they are sued. Their Time Warner division recently admitted (under oath, and in front of a judge) that they continue to solicit customers on their cellular phones, despite the fact that it is illegal to do so. By the way, one of ATA's board members works for AOL Time Warner, Ms. Katrina Wells.

Does the ATA really condone that kind of illegal activity by its members Mr. Clawson? We shall be waiting for your answer.

January 13, 2002

"Under the Indiana [statewide 'do-not-call' list] law, on the other hand, a charity could not call its own list of supporters without first striking the names from Indiana's do-not-call list. It does not matter if a particular consumer had donated thousands of dollars in the past, was on its board and just sent a letter to the charity that said 'Please call me. I'd like to hear about your current programs!' The call would be illegal and subject the charity to a penalty of up to $10,000 for the first violation."

William Raney, an attorney with Copilevitz and Cantor, a law firm specializing in telemarketing law commenting about certain aspects of Indiana's "do-not-call" law. A state firefighters' nonprofit organization has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that Indiana's "Do-Not-Call" list law violates the first amendment. Raney's firm is co-counsel in the suit. From DM News, Nonprofit Fights Indiana's DNC Law, December 24, 2001. Mr. Raney can be reached at (816) 471-3977 or via e-mail at braney@copilevitz-cantor.com.

C.A.T.S. Comment: Here we go again! Here is yet another example of a telemarketing lawyer using a ridiculous example in order to prove his point. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this situation really happened. In order for the charity to be fined by the attorney general of the state, the prospective donor, who, as Raney argues, is on the board of the charity, and had sent a letter saying, in essence, that it was OK to for them call him, would have to then file a complaint with the attorney general, in order for the charity to be fined!

Bill, there is no question that you are a gifted attorney, but when you present ridiculous arguments like this, you can only hurt your case. While you may convince a judge with such arguments, you will surely lose in the court of common sense.

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

January 6, 2002

"[Matt] Mattingley said before Arkow's victory that the law doesn't apply to a telephone call that doesn't pass over state lines.

"Arkow said that Mattingley was either hiding the truth or the lobbyist doesn't know the laws governing the industry he represents. A 1998 letter written by a Federal Communications Attorney states that 'The TCPA governs both intrastate and interstate telephone solicitations.'"

Alan Schnepf, a reporter for the Antelope Valley Press reporting on his conversation(s) with Matt Mattingley, Director of Government Affairs, for the American Teleservices Association (ATA). Based on ATA's web site, Mr. Mattingley also appears to be an instructor for the ATA's "Compliance Seminars". From Activist puts telemarketer on hook for $1,000, Antelope Valley Press, November 13, 2001.

C.A.T.S. Comment: We were shocked when reporter Alan Schnepf called us up before the trial that he covered and asked us about Mattingley's claim that the law does not apply to calls within the state.

It is common knowledge the the FCC regulates certain things within the states. For example, many radio and TV station broadcast signals do not cross state lines, yet they still have to obtain a FCC license to operate. If Mr. Mattingley does not know the law, then why is he teaching a "compliance seminar?"

As consumer advocates we often tell people to thoroughly check out any product or service before buying it. We now give the same advice to all telemarketing companies and agencies that may consider paying up to $475.00 for a one day "compliance seminar" taught by the ATA.

In view of Mr. Mattingley's comments to the newspaper, it seems to us that prospective buyers considering the purchase of the ATA's "compliance seminar" could spend their hard earned dollars on better things.

Quotes from 2001