|
|
|
Comments from people on the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (S.714)From Steve Herr: I don't have a problem with a non-profit emailing its members, people choose to join these groups, they want to know what the group is doing, and email is a relatively sensitive and sensible way to communicate. And recipients can easily blocks senders if the volume gets to be too
obnoxious. The number of non-profit groups any individual joins is rather
limited. For faxes, however, I strongly feel that non-profits should be prohibited
from faxing. First it is difficult to block faxes. Second, we will get all those
"Deputy Sheriffs Association" sending all sorts of faxes, when we all know that
they really are mostly a front for an advertising company (often
telemarketers)and a very small percentage actually goes to the charity. For non-joined non-profits, I feel they shouldn't be allowed to email either. However, an EBR for for-profits for either spam or junkfaxes is totally
inappropriate. We all need to buy food, clothes, and some other necessities.
Since these are items we pretty much "have" to buy, our relationship with the
company can vary from active to rather tenuous - it could be that we hardly know
who made the clothespins we bought, or it could be that we specifically sought
out Michelin tires for their perceived quality. Even when we seek out a specific
supplier, I think most people buy the product, and then really don't care much
about the company, it could go bankrupt and the consumer wouldn't give it much
thought. For a non-profit, we joined those groups specifically because of issues we
cared about. We have "EBR" contact with hundreds of companies each week. If I get a
prescription for a Pfizer product, or I buy a box of Kellogg cereal and then
Pfizer or Kellogg uses Choice Point or other database company to figure out my
email addy or fax number, do I want all sorts of ads appearing on my screen or
fax machine for their other drugs and cereals? HELL NO!!! From Jerry Rice: I don't care if you are a non-profit or where you get your income. If I do not give you my fax number, then I don't want you to have it. It should be 100% illegal in any shape or form for someone to send a fax to someone and STEAL their INK and their PAPER and their ELECTRICITY to FORCE someone to get something without their consent!!! If you want to get something in front of me, then use the post office. That way it is YOUR INK, PAPER and EXPENSE, not mine. I do not agree with a "opt-out" or "in order to be removed number" either. I have opted out and requested removal so many times that it would make your head spin. And the same companies just keep on faxing. If you send a fax (NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE!) without first being given permission by the person who owns the fax, then you are a THIEF!!! You are the lowest form of humanity and should be ashamed of your existence. Steve you did give us the information that we needed, because we joined this group because we HATE telemarketers, SPAMMERS and FAX BROADCASTERS that do so without our permission. Thank You Steve and when you need my file of over 900 Faxes they are ready for your lawsuits and getting thicker every day. From stronglaw21 at yahoo Junk faxing is a plague. To seek to somehow claim that the plague may be spread because of purported (or actual) "preexisting business relationship" ("PBR") means that there will be no real way to stop junk faxes. Every junk faxer will claim a PBR and the flood will start again, only worse. The end result is likely to be the end of fax machine usefulmess. People will switch to (less convenient) net based info transfers or fax applications such as e-fax.com because they are getting hundreds of unwanted faxes every week. There is no good reason for anyone to send out junk faxes, be they a "non-profit" a charity, or anything else. I called my two Senators to register my opposition to S. 714. I hope everyone else did too. From: jim sutton Thanks. To illustrate the point, by this exchange, the McClatchy company and I now have an EBR as defined in the JFPA of 2005. Thus, should this law pass, McClatchy can legally send me as many unsolicited faxes as the company wants advertising ANY product or service, until I opt out individually for each of my fax machines (which I cannot do until I receive a fax from McClatchy--for which I must pay "postage due" of printing and paper costs). Perhaps more importantly, from McClatchy's point of view, I can now legally junk fax any and all McClatchy fax machines--whether at the Anchorage Daily News, The Beaufort Gazette, or any other McClatchy company. And I can legally send you ads for Orlando vacations, home mortgages, printers, or whatever ad business I can drum up. To stop receiving these faxes, McClatchy would have to (1) receive and pay for at least one fax on each fax machine that it wished to opt out, (2) take 10-15 minutes for each machine to opt out (you have to follow my rules to do so), and (3) set up a database system to record the opt-out (otherwise, you wouldn't be able to enforce newly modified TCPA). The net result is that it is trivially easy to establish an EBR and an expensive pain in the rear end to opt out. The result, which the supporters of the bill want, is that consumers and businesses will not be able to afford to opt-out and do the record keeping required to enforce the opt-outs. Supporters give examples of a real estate agent getting sued for faxing a requested listing or a restaurant getting sued for faxing a menu. Aside from the fact that this has NEVER happened, the ONLY thing that needs to happen to solve this problem is to direct the FCC to allow verbal express permission for faxes--which the consumer should be able to limit to faxes to answer the specific request. The TCPA currently requires express permission without saying how such permission is granted. The FCC has issued a pending order to require WRITTEN permission (this was done because so many junk faxers were lying about having gotten verbal permission). There never has been an EBR exception for junk faxing (despite what proponents say). I would think the appropriate question to ask our representatives is, "How many of your constituents have called up to complain that they weren't receiving enough unsolicited faxes?" Jim Sutton ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Ortiz To: 'Jim Sutton' Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: RE: Article on Junk Faxes Jim: The story has received quite a bit of reaction from both sides of the issue. I'll pass your letter along to the editor for consideration. Thanks. Jon Jon Ortiz Business Writer The Sacramento Bee 916-321-1043 -----Original Message----- From: Jim Sutton Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 1:14 PM To: jortiz@sacbee.com Subject: Article on Junk Faxes Jon, I read your article on junk faxes, which I applaud. However, the situation is even worse than implied in the article. By the proposed law, an EBR is established by any voluntary two-way communication, and no "directionality" is implied. Thus, the junk faxer can establish the EBR by calling any target and having a conversation about anything. For example, a junk faxer could call the Secretary of State's office and ask how to request a copy of corporate information. Having done that, an EBR exemption would be established for junk faxing every fax machine owned by the State--let's say at the UCLA Medical Center or Department of Education. Further, the bill places no limitations on what is faxed or when. Thus, the same junk faxer could now legally fax ads for mortages, travel, stocks, cell phones, and pharmaceuticals to every fax number owned by the State. Your telephone company could turn into a giant junk faxer (obviously they have an EBR with you) and start faxing mortgage ads, etc., to your home at 3 AM. These are all legal under the purposefully misnamed Junk Fax Prevention Act. Worse yet, it is clear that a new junk faxing industry will develop, selling the fact that the junk faxer has established EBRs. All it takes is 1000 brief phone calls, one to each of the Fortune 1000 companies, to establish an EBR with all 1000 companies--no need to mention anything about faxes. Thereafter, the junk faxer can legally send faxes advertising ANYTHING to any fax machine in America's largest 1000 companies. Opting out is onerous, requiring a separate opt out for each fax machine and only after receiving (and paying for) at least one fax from each sender. One can only opt out at the convenience of the sender ("regular business hours," which is undefined) and the expense of record keeping is borne by recipient of the fax. Perhaps, if you are not planning a follow-up article, you can pass this on to your letters-to-the-editor. Thanks. Jim Sutton 14231 Hilltop Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408-741-8173
|
|
|
|
