High Praise for TeleBlock® From Indiana Attorney General

Subject to multiple state and federal do-not-call laws. The answer is that there is no difference. Each type of multi-jurisdictional regulation is equally legitimate and manageable.

2.    Using computer technology, the market has made compliance          with multiple telemarketing laws cheap and efficient.

           As explained in more detail in Indiana's Supplemental Comments In Opposition To The Consumer Bankers Association's Petition For Declaratory Ruling CG Docket No. 02-278, telemarketers have cheap and efficient resources available to enable compliance with each state's (and the federal government's) telemarketing laws. For example, the Teleblock® service of New York-based Call Compliance, Inc. is remarkably inexpensive (less than a penny a call) and highly effective. A more detailed description of this service is provided in the attached Declaration of Ms. Mervat Olds (Exhibit A), former Product Manager for XO Communications. See also Call Compliance, 2005 Online Regulatory Guide, at http://www.cci.regulatoryguide.com/myeln/cci.asp.

           Free markets have an uncanny way of enabling businesses to meet the demands of consumers. The market for telephone service features is proving no different when it comes to meeting consumer demands not to be called by telemarketers. Teleblock® and other compliance services have supplied a cost-effective, straightforward tool for telemarketers to comply with the Commission's Rules, the Federal Trade Commission's Rules, and the various state rules governing telephone solicitations. Hence, the petitioners' claims that compliance with a multi-state telemarketing regime is somehow burdensome or expensive are unsubstantiated and absurd.

32

______________________________________________________________________________

Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                                                      )
                                                                            )
Rules and Regulations Implementing the                  )    CG Docket No. 02-278
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991            )    CC Docket No. 92-90
                                                                            )
In the Matter of                                                      )
                                                                            )
CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION                  )    CG Docket No. 02-278
Consumer Bankers Association Petition for              )    DA No. 04-3835
Expedited Declaratory Ruling with Respect to           )
Certain Provisions of the Indiana Revised                  )
Statutes and Indiana Administrative Code.                )
                                                                            )
In the Matter of                                                      )
                                                                            )
ALLIANCE CONTACT SERVICES, et al.                  )    CG Docket No. 02-278
                                                                            )     DA No. 05-1346
Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling That                  )
The FCC has Exclusive Regulatory Jurisdiction         )
Over Interstate Telemarketing                                  )

STATE OF INDIANA'S REPLY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO
ALLIANCE CONTACT SERVICES, et al.'s JOINT PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
RULING AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION'S
PETITION TO DECLARE INDIANA'S TELEPHONE PRIVACY LAW PREEMPTED

 
                                                                            STEVE CARTER
                                                                            Attorney General of Indiana
                                                                            Thomas M. Fisher
                                                                            Solicitor General

Office of the Attorney General of Indiana
Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Telephone: (317) 232-6255
Telecopier: (317) 232.7979

Indiana and Wisconsin do-not-call lists, even where those customers have an EBR with those institutions of the kind recognized by federal law." (Id. at 12) It is refreshing to see the CBA acknowledge that compliance is a "simpl[e]" matter.

And, indeed, the reality us that multi-state compliance is easy and cheap. Indiana has detailed in its Comments in Opposition to the Alliance Contact Services Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling and its Supplemental Comments in Opposition to the Consumer Bankers Association's Petition for Declaratory Ruling just one example of a service, called Teleblock®, that is inexpensive and effective in ensuring that telemarketers comply with all state laws. With services such as Teleblock® that provide automatic blocking of restricted numbers, companies should no longer have to monitor each state's laws, their own campaigns, or the actions of their vendors because the service already does that for them at very little cost. (Indiana's Comments in Opposition to Alliance Contact Services Joint Petition Appendix at 2-3) Teleblock® has yet to see one of its customers fined, and Indiana's enforcement experience indicates that telemarketers calling across state lines currently have no compliance difficulties.

BellSouth's comments concerning the supposed costs and inefficiencies of the current system also warrant particular attention. BellSouth attempts to explain how permitting states to impose more stringent regulations on interstate calls supposedly harms consumers by causing them to miss commercial opportunities. (BellSouth Comments at 2) BellSouth explains how it had planned to launch a marketing campaign to promote an "aggressive DSL offer," but dropped the campaign after researching state telemarketing laws. (Id.) BellSouth admits that it was able to use other avenues to promote its DSL offer and accepts that not all consumers welcome telemarketing offers, but worries that some consumers missed this opportunity because of the extensive state laws. (Id.)

11
______________________________________________________________________________