Editorial: FCC ramps up crusade against robocalls

http://www.delcotimes.com/arti…6821e9530294931125.txt

Few things are more annoying than having a meal, TV show or family gathering interrupted by a ringing telephone – especially if the call is prerecorded, more commonly known as a robocall.

Everyone has experienced answering the phone and hearing that split-second delay when the automated recorder recognizes someone has picked up the receiver. After the maddening pause, the message begins.

But, in an era of ever-increasing bad news, the Federal Communications Commission is trying to generate some good news for consumers. The regulatory agency has proposed regulations requiring those under its jurisdiction to follow the same rules the Federal Trade Commission imposed on telemarketing calls in 2008.

If adopted, the changes to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act would limit the use of prerecorded calls and automatic telephone dialing systems.

The stricter guidelines proposed by the FCC on Jan. 20 have debt-collection companies in an uproar. Right now, non-sellers can make “autodialed” or prerecorded calls to wireless numbers. The ARM or “account receivable management” professionals claim they had consumers’ “prior express consent” for those calls when the customer provided a cell phone number on a credit application.

The FCC’s amendment would require a written agreement from the consumer that includes a clear disclosure that the purpose of the agreement is to authorize autodialed or prerecorded calls to the person signing the form. Also, calls to residential phone customers must provide an opt-out option, similar to those on some unsolicited e-mails.

A prior written agreement is currently only required under FCC rules where the call is made to a residential subscriber who has listed his or her number on the National Do Not Call Registry.

Debt collectors have expressed outrage about the plan on insider Web sites. A few suggested suing debtors as a way to get even for the new restrictions. Some blamed voting in liberal Democrats when Republicans have been “traditionally better for the ARM (Accounts Receivable Management) industry.”

While debt collectors may be unhappy, homeowners should be smiling. Besides nagging calls from those who bully people who owe money, other unwanted callers would need permission to call, too.

Telephone companies, airlines, banks, and insurance companies under the FCC’s exclusive jurisdiction would need the same written agreement from the consumer.

Politicians, those in office and those campaigning, would be affected. Tax-exempt organizations asking you to collect from neighbors or to pledge more money would need prior consent.

The bottom line, the privacy people once experienced in their homes may return. People who want to sell or collect or berate or promise will have to do it the old-fashioned way – by mail. Emergency or health-related calls would not need prior consent.

Of course, since the FCC proposal would create a major hurdle for debt collectors and other businesses, organized industries will make their feelings quite clear when the FCC asks for public comment.

Most residents, who would enjoy a quiet evening at home minus telephone calls from the uninvited, may find it difficult to find the site for public comment. Chances are elected officials will not. They should know how their constituents feel. Politicians will have no trouble discovering the lobbyists’ point of view.