IBJNews

Indiana AG to testify against cell phone bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said he will lobby Congress on Friday against a federal bill he says would strip the telephone privacy rights of residents in his state.

The Republican-backed bill being considered in the U.S. House would allow telemarketers and debt collectors to start dialing residents' cell phones and, if approved, would override Indiana's "Do Not Call" law and lead to a flood of robocalls to people's phones, Zoeller said Wednesday.

He plans to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

"States' attorneys general would be unable to enforce our more strict state laws on 'Do Not Call' and (the proposal) would prohibit us from regulating junk faxes and prerecorded calls or text messages" to cellphones, Zoeller said.

Supporters of the bill say it would update federal law to allow businesses to compete in an environment where cellphones have largely replaced landlines. The proposal makes modest updates to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, they say.

The proposal has few sponsors at this point — eight Republicans and one Democrat in the House — but a coalition of powerful business interests is supporting the measure. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, Edison Electric Institute — all powerful Washington lobbies in their own right — and close to a dozen other organizations sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Republican chairman and ranking Democrat supporting the measure.

"Congress should act now to modernize the TCPA's treatment of informational calls to consumers, while preserving its original intent to protect wireless consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls," the coalition wrote in the Sept. 23 letter to Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Zoeller did not say whether any members of Indiana's congressional delegation will support him on this issue, though he said he hopes to approach the lawmakers while in Washington.

In Indiana, Zoeller is fighting on multiple legal fronts to maintain the state's strict "Do Not Call" law and its ban on political robocalls.

A federal judge ruled in September that the state's ban on political robocalls violated a federal statute governing interstate communications. The Indiana Supreme Court is separately considering whether the state rightfully enforced the measure against FreeEats.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Bill's
    Why do we have to increase our phone bills to get crap calls.
  • Robocalls to Cellphones
    Since the owner of the cell phone has to pay for calls made by anyone calling their number, why do law makers line up to support nuisance callers? There isn't one business that should have the right to call my cell and stick me with the bill.
  • Cellphones
    I tend to leave my phone shut off just to avoid calls since I work nights. If this bill is pushed thru it will not change much but if a flood of robocalls and texts start, I might join the phone-less group

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

    2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

    3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

    4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

    5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

    ADVERTISEMENT