Cox submits that this proposal is flawed in two important respects. First, the proposed
definition inappropriately fails to distinguish between calls transferred between telemarketers
representing the same seller and calls transferred between telemarketers representing different
sellers. Second, the proposal, on its face, would subject up selling solicitations to calling hour
requirements, national do not call obligations and other aspects of the TSR that logically should
not apply to any call that is initiated by a consumer.
The Commission's proposed definition of an outbound telephone call includes any
telephone call to induce the purchase of goods or services . . . when such telephone call . . . is
transferred to a telemarketer other than the original telemarketer.
100
Under the proposed Rule,
the term telemarketer means any person who initiates or receives a call.
101
Read literally,
this provision would trigger the applicability of the proposed amended TSR whenever one Cox
customer care representative transfers an inbound caller to a different Cox customer care
representative for purposes of completing a transaction for the sale of Cox services. Surely, this
is not the result intended by the Commission. Cox accordingly requests that the Commission
revise the applicable definition of an outbound telephone call to clarify that an outbound call
does not include inbound calls transferred between telemarketers representing the same seller,
where the purpose of the call is to induce the purchase of that seller's products or services.
Moreover, as drafted, the FTC's proposed definition of an outbound telephone call
would essentially transform the up selling portion of inbound calls into separate, outbound
telemarketing calls that are fully subject to the calling hour restrictions, and national do not call
registry obligations of the proposed amended TSR. Read literally, this change would lead to
100
Proposed Rule 310.2(t)(2).
101
Proposed Rule 310.2(z).
35