public's access to information about and awareness of other media outlets, publications and 

information services that involve protected core speech.

9

In light of these considerations, and for all these reasons discussed in greater detail 

below, Cox respectfully urges the Commission to modify its proposed amendments to the Rule 

as follows: 

1. 

The Commission Should Create An Established Business Relationship 

Exemption.   

The Commission should create an exemption from the proposed national do  not call 

requirements for telemarketing calls to persons with whom the seller has formed an established 

business relationship.  By requiring consumers on the proposed national do  not call registry to 

affirmatively provide  express verifiable authorization  before they can receive information from 

their existing service providers, the proposed TSR unreasonably interferes with valuable 

communications between consumers and businesses they know and trust.  To the extent these 

requirements are applied to newspapers, cable operators and other print and electronic media 

services, they also threaten to disrupt the delivery of vital news and information to the public.  

The legislative history fully supports, if not mand ates, the adoption of an established business 

relationship exemption from the proposed national do not call requirements, and such an 

exemption would align the TSR with the approach of the Federal Communications Commission 

( FCC ) and virtually every state legislature that has enacted analogous do  not call registry laws. 

continued

8

See, e.g., Lakewood

, 486 U.S. at 761 ( Newspapers are in the business of expression, while soda vendors are in the 

business of selling soft drinks. ); 

see also

, 

Bery v. City of New York

, 97 F.3d 689 (2nd Cir. 1996) (striking down 

enforcement of general peddling ordinance against sale of protected speech on public streets and sidewalks.) 

9

 Of course the First Amendment shields more than the distribution of news content and political speech.  Its 

protections extend to all forms of entertainment media.  

See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 

114 S.Ct. 

2445, 2464 (1994) (television programming);

 Winters v. New York

, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948) (film); 

Joseph 

continued

4