Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 03:08 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 109 - TELEPHONE DIRECTORY LISTING/SOLICITATION Number 369 CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would now readdress HB 109. Number 373 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN testified that HB 109 would address telephone solicitations which are often an annoyance and intrusive. She feels the legislature has broad direction to be concerned about the privacy of Alaskans and to take proactive actions to implement that provision of the constitution. HB 109 provides that a local exchange telephone company would be required to offer the opportunity to identify oneself in the phone book as not wishing to receive solicitations. She said on page 2, line 13, there is a list of actions which would not be covered. This includes: Calls made in response to a request or inquiry by the customer who was called; calls made by a charitable organization, public agency or volunteer; calls limited to polling or soliciting the expression of ideas, opinions or votes; and business to business calls or people seeking business from prior customers. The penalty for a violation would be a finding of an unfair trade practice, covered under Title 45.50, which would only come about should the Attorney General get enough complaints to bring an action. The law would then provide for a civil fine of $5,000 per violation. REPRESENTATIVE BROWN distributed an amendment suggested by General Communications, Incorporated (GCI) which would address concerns telemarketers have expressed. She said if they had a computerized list of people not interested in being called, it could be sorted against the other computerized list they're working with. If implemented, this system would not only benefit the privacy of people not wishing to be contacted, but it also would benefit the sellers because they wouldn't be wasting their time calling people who don't intend to purchase in this manner. Number 416 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN pointed out there was a federal law passed in 1991 or 1992, implemented by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1992. She does not feel this federal law has cut down on the amount of uninvited solicitations. She has asked phone solicitors who have contacted her, and found several to be unaware of the federal law. They couldn't respond to items required by that law. Number 428 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked how telemarketers currently obtain lists of numbers, and if it was just from telephone books. Number 430 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded she was not certain of all sources where such lists might be generated. Number 437 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA wondered what happened if you distributed numbers of people who didn't want to be solicited. Could those be private numbers? Number 441 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN stated it would not affect private or unlisted numbers. This was intended to be a kind of compromise so that you could still have a public number listed in the directory, however, it would have a "dot" by the name saying "solicitors, don't call me." People who chose to have unlisted numbers would be relying on the federal law. Number 452 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if this affected pollsters. Number 453 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said it did not. They are specifically exempted on page 2, lines 21 and 22. Number 458 CHAIRMAN KOTT commented that he seldom watches TV. However, there was a show regarding telemarketers that caught his eye. If you are solicited, you may ask to be placed on the non call list. As long as you have the person's name, what time it was, and a brief summary of what took place, it would be a violation if they call you again. Number 467 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN said that is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The difficulty there is that every telemarketer in the country could call, each one keeping a separate list. With HB 109 you would be putting people on notice that you don't want these calls and it would be their burden to obtain the lists. Number 475 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he didn't know anyone who liked to be solicited. He asked if it would be advantageous to have the telephone companies put the dot next to the people who wanted to be called. Number 480 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN commented this was probably more of a problem in urban areas where there is a big enough market to show up on some computer sorting where they do it by zip code. "You're paying for a little bit of privacy protection." Number 485 CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the staff had advised him he may have problems with the first amendment on this idea; so, he would withdraw that idea. Number 490 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if she considered expanding the bill to include mail catalogs. He said he had two trees a month arriving at his home. Number 496 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked if a religious organization was a charitable organization. He would hope they were not. Number 505 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN replied that the things prohibited if you had the "do not call me dot," includes people who are trying to get you to buy something or to make a donation. She said if the religious organization were soliciting donations, this would not be allowed. However, they could ask you to attend services. Number 511 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER interjected there were additional qualifications. This doesn't allow charitable organizations to call out of hand. You have to be a member of the organization or have made a previous donation or expressed an interest. Number 514 CHAIRMAN KOTT said he had an amendment distributed by Representative Brown. He would move Amendment 1. He asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, Amendment 1 was adopted. He said this would be adopted in the form of a CS at some point. Number 520 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he had heard the bill last year and wouldn't feel uncomfortable moving it, as amended. Number 526 CHAIRMAN KOTT said they had a scheduling problem. In accordance with AS 24.08.035, they could not move the bill without a fiscal note. Number 527 REPRESENTATIVE BROWN responded they were not informed until Thursday afternoon the bill was going to be heard Friday. This was the reason they had not requested it. They do have a fiscal note for last year's version of the legislation of HB 54. That fiscal note was zero. CHAIRMAN KOTT stated he wouldn't have a problem moving HB 109 from committee and holding it in committee until they had received the fiscal note. If it is other than zero he would bring the bill back before the committee. Number 530 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made the motion to move CSHB 109(L&C) out of committee Number 533 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were any objections to moving CSHB 109(L&C) with the understanding it would be held in committee until a fiscal note was received. It would then be transmitted to the Chief Clerk. Hearing no objection, the motion carried.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|