Concerning your webpage at: http://www.fcc.gov/cib/consumerfacts/PredictiveAlert.html
Titled: "Predictive Dialing: The Silence on the Other End of the Line"

The above FCC web site should be improved with finite language relating to predictive dialer abandonment calls and their inherent violations 47 CFR sec.64.1200 / 47USC sec.227.

Without making further comments concerning the above, I wish to point out at
least one glaring error / misrepresentation within that web page.

The last sentence of the second paragraph therein reads as follows:
        "Also, the Direct Marketing Association maintains a nationwide
        'do-not-call' list that is used voluntarily by its 4,500 member companies."

That statement is not true and leads consumers to believe that the DMA's Telephone Preference Service (TPS) is more effective than it actually is.

In fact -
        The DMA claims to have approximately 4,500 members. However, not all members are involved in business-to-residence sales solicitation calls. Indeed, a substantial majority of its members DO NOT make such calls. Therefore, far fewer than 4,500 firms use the TPS to avoid 'telemarketing' to TPS listees.

Furthermore -
        The term 'telemarketing' (as used in your above web site) is considered by most residents to include calls made by or on behalf of survey, and non-profit organizations as well. Regardless of whether such an organization is a member of the DMA, both survey and non-profit firms are exempt from DMA guidelines concerning the TPS and Do Not use the TPS.
        Those same DMA guidelines also exempt calls to residents with whom a sales soliciting firm has a prior business relationship. Thus (for example) AT&T may continue to call TPS listees who had long distance service prior to AT&T's break-up, or at any time since.   
        Unlike the TCPA or state do-not-call lists, the DMA's TPS requires listees to reveal their name - address - city - state - zip - phone number. All of that information is put in a single record for that specific listee. Millions of such records are then sold to those telemarketing firms that elect to buy those records (the TPS). More than 30% of all residential phones are unlisted/unpublished (for the most part, in an effort to keep that same private/personal information from direct marketers/telemarketers). What the FCC is doing on its subject web page, is encouraging such residents to release this information to the very same direct marketing firms they are trying to insulate themselves from. I am personally aware of at least one firm that used the TPS as a junk mail list.
        On June 13, 2000 the American Teleservices Association included the following text in its prepared statement (on page 8)* concerning H.R.3180 to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection of the U.S. House of Representatives Commerce Committee. "Additionally, for the Federal Government to endorse a private company [the DMA] is ethically questionable"*
*http://www.ataconnect.org/htdocs/govtrel/comments/hr_3100_3180_jun00.PDF
 An illustration of TPS's uselessness as a do-not-call list, is examined by Private Citizen, Inc, at: http://privatecitizen.com/tps-namevari.htm .

All in all, the FCC's promotion of the DMA's TPS is a fulfillment of a statement made by the then DMA president, Jonah Gitlitz (as published in the October 22, 1990 issue of DM News) to wit; "The goal of the DMA is to discover and to thwart possible government regulation, and we have done it."  The TPS is one of the ways the DMA accomplishes this goal... now with the FCC's assistance.
 
The following was downloaded from the DMA site on 11/16/00 at:
http://www.the-dma.org/cgi/newsstandarchive (now dismounted).
It clearly shows that the DMA questions its members' adherence to DMA guidelines concerning Predictive Dialer abandonment rates and seems more concerned that requiring its members to adhere to its guidelines may result in decreased revenue for the DMA. After your review, I wonder if the FCC will continue to truly believe the DMA's assurances concerning its member's use of the TPS.

(For further reading concerning the industry's view of predictive dialing, you may want to visit our web page at: http://privatecitizen.com/predictive.htm )
--
Bob Bulmash - president
Private Citizen, Inc.   http://private-citizen.com

++++++++++

 by Joan Mullen, Vice President, Industry Relations, Ron Weber and Associates, Inc. Legislative Committee Chair, DMA Teleservices Council

 Any marketer that uses a predictive dialer should be familiar with the Predictive Dialer Guidelines issued by The DMA last year. These guidelines were put together after much research and many meetings with manufacturers as well as users. At the time of their publication, The DMA made a commitment to review the guidelines at the end of a year. Well, friends, that time has come, and with it--the PROBLEM.

 The existing guidelines for USERS of predictive dialers state that "abandoned or "hang up" calls should be kept as close to 0% as possible, and in no case should exceed 5% of answered calls per day in any campaign". The guidelines go on to say that telemarketers may not abandon the same telephone number more than twice within a 48-hour time period and not more than twice within a 30-day period of a marketing campaign.

 These two points pose a serious problem for us.

 Currently, the DMA is considering a revision of these guidelines to lower the permissible abandon rate to 3% or even lower. It very likely could get to a point that predictive dialers must be operated in a way that negates the cost effectiveness they are designed to generate. Why? In part because consumers, especially the elderly, are frightened when they answer the telephone and no one is there. There has also been a huge increase in requests by consumers to be added to the Telephone Preference Service list and/or state Do Not Call registries.

 The DMA Teleservices Council's Operating Committee has been working closely with the DMA Ethics Committee for several months to try and reach a solution that will protect both the consumer and your right to do business is a cost effective manner.

 Our position is that there are questions that need to be answered before any revisions are made to the guidelines. How many DMA members are committed to an abandon rate of 5% or less? How is compliance monitored? How do we know for certain that the increase in consumer requests for TPS are related only, or even primarily to, the misuse of predictive dialers? How would a lower abandon rate financially affect businesses that use predictive dialers? How would a lower abandon rate affect DMA membership? These questions must be answered not only by members of the Teleservices Council, but also by every DMA member that uses a predictive dialer or that outsources campaigns requiring the use of predictive dialing.

 It is a strong possibility that those who misuse predictive dialers aren't even DMA member companies, and any revision in the Guidelines would have zero impact. It is even possible that DMA members have paid lip service in support of the Guidelines but, in reality, ignore them. We have to figure out a solution to this problem, because if we don't, one will be mandated for us