Zoeller joins 53 other attorneys general in fight against robo-calls to cell phones

9

Attorney General Greg Zoeller joins 53 other attorneys general asking Congress to oppose legislation targeting consumers’ telephone privacy.

The “Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011” would amend the Communications Act of 1934 and allow for robo-calling to all cell phones, leaving consumers to foot the bill, Zoeller said. For example, debt collectors and other businesses could place automated “informational” calls to cell phones, impacting those who pay by the minute or have a limited number of minutes available.

In addition, since businesses frequently have the wrong contact information, consumers could be getting and paying for repeated robo-calls on their cell phones with respect to accounts that are not their own.

“This letter to Congress sends a very clear message that the consumers in America, represented by their attorneys general, do not want to allow robo-calls to their cell phones – period,” Zoeller said. We hope our representatives in Washington D.C. hear this message loud and clear. H.R. 3035 constitutes an assault on consumers’ privacy and does nothing to add protections, which is the stated purpose of the original Telephone Consumer Protection Act.”

The attorneys general are asking members of Congress to reject U.S. House Resolution 3035. As chief protectors of consumer rights, many state attorneys general would not be able to enforce their more strict state laws against junk faxes, prerecorded calls or text messages.

This legislation would also narrow the definition of what constitutes an illegal “automatic telephone dialing system.” If passed, the new definition would only prohibit “random or sequential number generators” which means “targeted” calls would be permitted, Zoeller said.

Currently, federal law allows robo-calls to be placed to people who have given their explicit consent to receive them or in case of an emergency. If this federal legislation passes, the law will be expanded to allow businesses to robo-call any consumer who has provided their telephone number in the course of a transaction – regardless if a consumer asks not to be contacted.

In the letter, officials also pointed out that an increase in calls to mobile phones could present a hazard to drivers who may become distracted. A 2009 study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that cell phone use was involved in 995 or 18 percent of fatalities in distraction-related crashes.

“The Telephone Consumer Protection Act is meant to protect consumers and this bill goes in the wrong direction by opening a pandora’s box – giving businesses carte blanche to make calls to personal cell phones regardless of consumers’ wishes of whether or not to get those calls,” Zoeller said.
The proposal is currently being considered in the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce – the first step in the legislative process. Zoeller joined other consumer advocates in November to provide testimony in opposition to the legislation during a hearing before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology in Washington, D.C..

Citizens can also voice their opinion on the proposal by contacting their representative or by voting on Popvox’s nonpartisan website https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr3035. Popvox will also forward consumers’ comments to members of Congress.

Those that signed the letter are from: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

9 COMMENTS

  1. Why doesn’t Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller concentrate his efforts on things that REALLY MATTER?

    Such as explaining how the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation was able to just ignore State Statute on the renovation of their current administration headquarters!

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    IC 36-1-12-4 Version a
    Procedure for projects in certain political subdivisions
    Note: This version of section amended by P.L.139-2011, SEC.6. See also following version of this section amended by P.L.172-2011, SEC.139.
    Sec. 4. (a) This section applies whenever the cost of a public work project will be:
    (1) at least seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) in:
    (A) a consolidated city or second class city;
    (B) a county containing a consolidated city or second class city; or
    (C) a regional water or sewage district established under IC 13-26; or
    (2) at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in a political subdivision or an agency not described in subdivision (1).
    (b) The board must comply with the following procedure:
    (1) The board shall prepare general plans and specifications describing the kind of public work required, but shall avoid specifications which might unduly limit competition. If the project involves the resurfacing (as defined by IC 8-14-2-1) of a road, street, or bridge, the specifications must show how the weight or volume of the materials will be accurately measured and verified.
    (2) The board shall file the plans and specifications in a place reasonably accessible to the public, which shall be specified in the notice required by subdivision (3).
    (3) Upon the filing of the plans and specifications, the board shall publish notice in accordance with IC 5-3-1 calling for

    sealed proposals for the public work needed.
    (4) The notice must specify the place where the plans and specifications are on file and the date fixed for receiving bids.
    (5) The period of time between the date of the first publication and the date of receiving bids shall be governed by the size of the contemplated project in the discretion of the board. The period of time between the date of the first publication and receiving bids may not be more than:
    (A) six (6) weeks if the estimated cost of the public works project is less than twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); and
    (B) ten (10) weeks if the estimated cost of the public works project is at least twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000).
    (6) If the cost of a project is one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, the board shall require the bidder to submit a financial statement, a statement of experience, a proposed plan or plans for performing the public work, and the equipment that the bidder has available for the performance of the public work. The statement shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the state board of accounts.
    (7) The board may not require a bidder to submit a bid before the meeting at which bids are to be received. The meeting for receiving bids must be open to the public. All bids received shall be opened publicly and read aloud at the time and place designated and not before. Notwithstanding any other law, bids may be opened after the time designated if both of the following apply:
    (A) The board makes a written determination that it is in the best interest of the board to delay the opening.
    (B) The day, time, and place of the rescheduled opening are announced at the day, time, and place of the originally scheduled opening.
    (8) Except as provided in subsection (c), the board shall:
    (A) award the contract for public work or improvements to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder; or
    (B) reject all bids submitted.
    (9) If the board awards the contract to a bidder other than the lowest bidder, the board must state in the minutes or memoranda, at the time the award is made, the factors used to determine which bidder is the lowest responsible and responsive bidder and to justify the award. The board shall keep a copy of the minutes or memoranda available for public inspection.
    (10) In determining whether a bidder is responsive, the board may consider the following factors:
    (A) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid or quote that conforms in all material respects to the specifications.
    (B) Whether the bidder has submitted a bid that complies specifically with the invitation to bid and the instructions to bidders.
    (C) Whether the bidder has complied with all applicable statutes, ordinances, resolutions, or rules pertaining to the award of a public contract.
    (11) In determining whether a bidder is a responsible bidder, the board may consider the following factors:
    (A) The ability and capacity of the bidder to perform the work.
    (B) The integrity, character, and reputation of the bidder.
    (C) The competence and experience of the bidder.
    (12) The board shall require the bidder to submit an affidavit:
    (A) that the bidder has not entered into a combination or agreement:
    (i) relative to the price to be bid by a person;
    (ii) to prevent a person from bidding; or
    (iii) to induce a person to refrain from bidding; and
    (B) that the bidder’s bid is made without reference to any other bid.
    (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b)(8), a county may award sand, gravel, asphalt paving materials, or crushed stone contracts to more than one (1) responsible and responsive bidder if the specifications allow for bids to be based upon service to specific geographic areas and the contracts are awarded by geographic area. The geographic areas do not need to be described in the specifications.
    As added by Acts 1981, P.L.57, SEC.38. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.56, SEC.4; P.L.329-1985, SEC.17; P.L.213-1986, SEC.4; P.L.252-1993, SEC.3; P.L.82-1995, SEC.15; P.L.22-2001, SEC.1; P.L.169-2006, SEC.48; P.L.113-2010, SEC.108; P.L.139-2011, SEC.6.

    __

  2. There should have been a caveat at the end of the above code stating that if you find the competitive bidding process too confining, or not to your taste, you can always set up a 501c3 corporation, in this case the EVSC Foundation, to do those things that your taxing entity is prohibited by statute from doing.

    Can you imagine the EVSC selling that building, for $1.00, with a repurchase agreement, to the EVSC Foundation [501c3] on one day and repurchasing it 3 days later in order to allow the EVSC Foundation time enough to sign a renovation contract with Alan Braun and Industrial Contractors?

    If that isn’t giving the old middle finger to the taxpayers I don’t know what is!

    Read what shoulders said about it here:

    http://www.14news.com/story/13916545/evsc-handles-hiring-for-renovation-local-contractors-upset?clienttype=printable

    I don’t see how they could get him to stop laughing long enough to take his statement.

    __

    __

    • BTW, is EVSC allowed to sell a publicly owned building for less than the appraised value? Even an absurdly low price of one dollar?

      __

      • There is no record of this $1.00 sale available on the Assessor’s website. In fact, the EVSC Foundation is listed as owner of the property at 951 Walnut [the newly renovated building], while the EVSC is only listed as owner of the old [currently empty] admin. bldg. on 9th Street.

        __

  3. What was the name of the hot-shot superintendent of schools? Seems like he has skipped for a better gig. Nice hit and run.

  4. The “no call list” is not effective.
    “Hi! This is Rachael. I’m calling about your credit card account, etc.”
    Need I say more? …

    • There is a new one now. Rachael must have gotten fired. Or maybe she is the good looking one that blanger refers to another posting.

Comments are closed.