Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/08/2002 03:25 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 448-TELEMARKETERS PHONE LISTS/REGISTRATION CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 448, "An Act relating to establishing a data base of residential telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations, providing that the data base be compiled at no cost to the customers, requiring telephone solicitors to purchase the data base, and requiring paid solicitors to register; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR MURKOWSKI also announced that it was not her intention to move HB 448 from committee today. Number 1244 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt 22-LS1407\L, Craver, 4/8/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version L was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, testifying as the sponsor, related his belief that there is consensus that the present law isn't working properly because it isn't well publicized. He explained that under current law the consumer is charged to be on a do- not-call list. This legislation would transfer the cost to the telemarketers. Representative Crawford pointed out that having a single list would make it easier for the telemarketers and for enforcement when telemarketers call folks listed on the do-not- call list. Representative Crawford concluded by expressing his desire to work with all involved in order to develop a good law. Number 1361 CODY RICE, Intern for Representative Joe Hayes, Alaska State Legislature, explained that HB 448 addresses the following main problems: the promulgation of the current statute, the payment of service for being included on the [do-not-call] list, and the clarity of definitions and exemptions. This legislation modifies the existing statute such that the burden of paying for the do-not-call list is on the users of the list, which is the telemarketer. The legislation also increases public awareness of the consumer's option to participate in the do-not-call list. Furthermore, the legislation removes the loopholes of paid solicitors operating under exemptions of organizations by which they are contracted. Therefore, better regulation and increased revenue results. Mr. Rice said that HB 448 will return privacy to Alaskan homes while clarifying current law and increasing the safety of consumers who are the subject of predatory telemarketing. Number 1452 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posed a situation in which staff for politicians are being paid to make calls and asked if those staff would be included in HB 448. MR. RICE answered that exemptions already exist for those soliciting political opinions or thoughts and those exemptions haven't been changed. In further response to Representative Meyer, Mr. Rice said that the exemptions include pollsters so long as they aren't soliciting money. In response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Rice specified that currently politicians are exempt and would remain so as long as they are soliciting political opinions or campaign funds from those who have expressed an interest or have contributed in the previous six months. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posed a situation in which a politician is calling to solicit an individual's vote. MR. RICE said that would be considered a political opinion and would be exempt. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER remarked that in some ways he felt that this legislation should pertain to politicians. Number 1549 CHAIR MURKOWSKI posed a situation in which a charitable organization is soliciting funds. MR. RICE answered that charitable organizations will continue to have exempt status so long as they operate under the current exemption clause. He explained that the current exemption clause specifies that the charitable organization [can only solicit people] who have expressed previous interest in donating funds or have done so within a specified amount of time. CHAIR MURKOWSKI posed a situation in which her child is a participant in the Boys & Girls Club and she pays for their soccer fees. In such a situation would it be appropriate for the Boys & Girls Club to do a direct financial solicitation to me. MR. RICE responded that he wasn't sure. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that the current statute isn't being changed. The legislation only places the paid solicitor under this law. CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised then that it would be appropriate for the financial director of the Boys & Girls Club to call her. However, if the club pays for a solicitor, the club cannot call her if she [is on the do-not-call list]. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he believes that to be correct. Number 1625 CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Section 1 of [Version L] and asked if there are penalties associated to the violations [discussed in Section 1]. MR. RICE replied yes. He directed attention to the Voice of the Times article, which specifies that fines can sum up to $5,000. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if that would be the case because [the telemarketer] has violated the unfair trade practices and the penalties are already attached. The initial drafts don't appear to assess any civil penalties. In many states, [the telemarketer] can face $500 or $1,000 a call. She related her belief that there should be some penalties attached. MR. RICE deferred to the representative from the Department of Law. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related that there seems to be fairly good consensus on Sections 1 and 3-7. However, Section 2 has been the subject of some discord, which he has attempted to work through. If this legislation is held today, Section 2 could be brought back in an acceptable form. Representative Crawford explained that [everyone] is working towards putting this under a third-party contractor rather than having local exchanges or the attorney general's office being responsible for this. The third-party contractor would administer the do-not-call list and the 1-800 number. Number 1793 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the same third party would have a database of who can be called. Representative Rokeberg indicated that the legislation doesn't seem to prohibit anything like that. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that it seems that the legislation is encouraging the establishment of a database of telephone solicitation. Perhaps that's why the solicitors don't mind paying for it. He inquired as to how updates of the list would be done. MR. RICE answered that many states have updated the list quarterly. Mr. Rice agreed that this list would make it easier for telemarketers to call those not on the [do-not-call] list and it would make their job more efficient. However, those on the [do-not-call] list have the option to be on the list for free. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the cost of being on the [do-not-call] list in Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that in Anchorage it costs about $6.50 and is a one-time fee. In response to Chair Murkowski, Representative Crawford agreed that the fee is dependent upon the carrier and he was referring only to Anchorage and ACS. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER pointed out that one could have caller id. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that [many] of the telemarketers have their id blocked and so no id shows up. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT informed the committee of a new item available to attach to a phone that supposedly eliminates 99.9 percent of the telemarketing telephone calls. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO explained that the aforementioned product is based on the idea that most telemarketers utilize an automated dialing system and when the recipient of the call answers the call is forward to an operator. When that happens, the product sends a signal that disengages the telephone. Number 1988 BOB TAYLOR, Alaska Commission on Aging, informed the committee that he was filling in for the Executive Director of the Alaska Commission on Aging. Mr. Taylor said he wasn't sure whether the commission has had the opportunity to take a firm position on this legislation. However, all the comments thus far have been that the commission favors this type of legislation and restrictions on predatory solicitations. Number 2039 MARIE DARLIN, AARP, expressed pleasure that these hearings are taking place. Ms. Darlin announced AARP's support of HB 448 because 50 percent of those receiving telemarketing calls are to seniors who are often the ones that are taken advantage of by telemarketers. In a recent survey of AARP members in Alaska, AARP members were asked their top priorities for legislative issues. Of the seniors age 50-59, 19 percent specified that consumer fraud was one of the prime concerns. Of the seniors age 75 and older, 30 percent specified that consumer fraud was one of the prime concerns. She said AARP would like to see HB 448 passed once the concerns of the attorney general's office are addressed. She highlighted that if HB 448 passes it won't cost the individual to be on the [do-not-call] list. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if this legislation should include those running for elected office. MS. DARLIN said there don't seem to be too many complaints about a survey that is political in nature. In fact, seniors are often very willing to provide their opinion when their are surveys. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER surmised then that Ms. Darlin is saying that most AARP members wouldn't mind a candidate calling and requesting their vote because the AARP member could ask questions. MS. DARLIN reiterated her former answer and indicated agreement that the AARP member would probably ask the candidate questions. Number 2211 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if AARP's support for HB 448 is related to [the belief] that the "black dot system" [the do-not- call list] isn't working. MS. DARLIN answered that this legislation clarifies a lot of issues. Also, the legislation doesn't require the individual to pay to be on the [do-not-call] list. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Darlin feels that Alaskans aren't being served by the "black dot system." MS. DARLIN pointed out that in lots of places in the state this system isn't even available. She pointed out that whether this system is available or not depends upon an individual's carrier as is the case with the fee. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that Alaska's current "black dot list" includes about 2 percent of the telephone customers in the state. The average in the states that do this is 10-20 percent. Therefore, it seems that it isn't being utilized [in Alaska]. Most of the other states charge the telemarketers rather than the consumers. Having the consumers pay to be on this list is a barrier, he related. He noted that the cost to be on the list ranges from $6.50-$12.50. There is even a telemarketer that has approval to charge up to $50. Currently, many of the telemarketers utilize computer- generated lists on which the black dot isn't specified. Therefore, many people on the "black dot list" receive calls from telemarketers. This legislation attempts to create a centralized list for the entire state. MS. DARLIN interjected that AARP members have mentioned that they have paid to be on the "black dot list," but still receive calls. TAPE 02-53, SIDE B Number 2338 DENNIS HARRIS informed the committee that he isn't on the "black dot list" because he was opposed to paying for it. No one should have to pay for the privilege of having an unlisted telephone number. Furthermore, he didn't believe anyone should have to pay for telemarketers to not call him. For what this legislation does in that vein, he was much appreciative. However, he expressed concern that on the state's web page, only six solicitors are listed under the current law. Therefore, he surmised that many of the people calling from outside the state aren't following Alaska's law. He informed the committee that under the federal "Junk Fax" law there is a provision that allows people who receive junk faxes to go to small claims court and obtain a judgment against the person who sent the junk fax. He expressed the need for the same type of provision in HB 448 so that consumers won't have to depend upon the government or a government contractor to enforce this. Under the federal law, if an individual has informed someone to place him/her on the do-not-call list and the calls continue or the person/organization can't send the individual a copy of their do-not-call policy the individual can take them to court. A parallel provision in state law would be useful, he said. MR. HARRIS expressed concern with the elderly and [telemarketers]. However, he related his belief that the First Amendment protects the rights of politicians who want to make these calls. He informed the committee that people who solicit money from him via the telephone generally don't receive money from him permanently. Mr. Harris said that he believes this legislation is necessary because he doesn't want to have to pay for the black dot next to his name in the telephone book. Mr. Harris informed the committee that most telemarketers use predictive dialers and block their caller id as does he. However, he suggested that this legislation require telemarketers to unblock their caller id so that there is a way to record the number and have it traced [so that the consumer can] keep a record of their calls. Mr. Harris directed attention to a recent Washington Post article in which Ms. Manners noted her support of a national do-not-call list, which the Federal Trade Commission is accepting comments on until April 15th. He discussed how the device that disconnects telemarketers works in more depth. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that there are over 16 local exchanges that provide separate "black dot lists." Many local exchanges don't sell their "black dot list" and thus the telemarketer has to go through the telephone book. Number 2080 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT turned to Section 2 and inquired as to why business owners weren't included in this. In other words, why was this legislation limited to residential telephone numbers, he asked. [HB 448 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|