Direct TV sucks.

Their services may be okay; I'm not expressing an opinion on that. But their marketing is repulsive (at a minimum, and possibly illegal), and it's entirely reasonable to base an opinion on the entire company on their marketing.

I got a phone call from them this evening. Two of them, actually, as they hung up just after I picked up the phone the first time. Completely unsolicited, of course; just the sort of thing that the National Do-Not-Call Registry is supposed to prevent.

Here's the gist of the phone call:
[Before answering the call, I checked the caller ID, confirming that it was the same "Direct View" that had called and hung up 20 minutes earlier.]
Hello. Hello, this is [fake name] from Direct TV. Is this Mr. Stoner?
Yes, it is. Do you still have cable TV, but not satellite TV?
[Pause] Did I ask you to call me? No, you didn't.
You recognize that you're breaking the law. No, I'm not. You're not on the Do-Not-Call Registry.
Yes, I am. Well, then, your registration doesn't take effect until January 1 of next year.
No, it took effect October 1. Well, then, it doesn't apply when people in Virginia call one another. And since Virginia doesn't have its own do-not-call list, we can still call you.
Okay, but I don't want to talk to you. Good-bye. [click]

Well. Interesting phone call on so many levels. One, of course, is that I have to wonder about the wisdom of cold-calling someone and then repeatedly lying to them. She affirmatively lied to me twice, by telling me that I'm not registered with the national Registry, and then by telling me that if I am registered, it's not yet effective. I know what the truth is, and she wasn't winning herself any points by lying to me.

Mainly, though, I thought that was a huge loophole that she revealed: that the Registry doesn't apply to intrastate phone calls. Well, hmm, that makes a certain amount of sense, as the Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate. Still, Direct TV is a national company, and this call was probably part of a national campaign, so that might qualify as enough of a connection with interstate commerce that the FTC's jurisdiction attaches. (It would be enough to qualify for federal court jurisdiction, for instance.) And if it's not - if a company or telemarketing firm can get around the Registry just by setting up smaller calling rooms in each state to make in-state phone calls - that is a pretty impressive loophole in the program.

First things first, though. I went to the main Do-Not-Call Registry site, and confirmed that my phone number is, in fact, registered. (I wasn't aware that you could check so easily: just type in your phone number and an email address, and in a couple of minutes, you get an email confirming your registration status - for me, it said "Your phone number ... was registered in the National Do Not Call Registry on 6/27/2003," just as I had recalled, and in plenty of time for the October 1 effective date.) And, in hopes that it would eventually do something, I filed a complaint with the FTC against Direct TV, giving them the company name (and the different name they were using on Caller ID) and the phone number they called from (unfortunately, in my area code).

I then started looking around to find the actual text of the FTC regulation, to see what (if anything) it says about intrastate calls. The main Do-Not-Call website isn't much help - it once refers to interstate calls, and goes into length elsewhere about the types of calls that the Registry won't prohibit (political or charitable calls, or surveys, or calls from companies you have a business relationship with) and specifically tells you that even overseas telemarketing calls are prohibited ("Any telemarketers calling U.S. consumers are covered, regardless of where they are calling from"). Seems to me that it would have been easy enough to have added "or in-state calls" to the list of calls that aren't prohibited.

I ran across an independent site reporting on the national Registry, and while it doesn't directly address in-state calls, it has a lot of good information on the Registry, interaction with state registries, and the like. I've sent off a quick email to them, and I hope I'll hear back on intrastate solicitations.

I have not yet uncovered a firm answer on what the regulation says. I've found the Federal Register that has the "Final Rule" in it, but it's about 125 pages in length, and I don't want to stare at pdf files all evening to read it. I'll keep looking, and will hope to find something shorter to look at.

And whether the phone call I received was part of a national campaign by Direct TV, exploiting a loophole, or something truly being done by a local Direct TV provider, it really seems to me to be short-sighted to call people who have gone out of their way to be listed on a do-not-call registry: it's a waste of time and effort for them, and it just gets the consumers annoyed (and sometimes, really annoyed).

My conclusion: I had no prior interest in getting satellite TV from Direct TV, but I guarantee you I won't ever get it now. And if you're opposed to unsolicited telemarketing, you shouldn't give them your business, either.

Update: As usual, I think of these things after I hang up the phone. But I'll be better prepared for next time. After her telling me that the Registry didn't apply to Virginia-resident-to-Virginia-resident calls, my conversation with her should have continued:
Are you a lawyer? No, I'm not.
Then don't presume to tell me what the law is. [pause] You must have gotten an opinion from your lawyer that what you're doing isn't illegal. I tell you what: I'll hold off making a complaint to the FTC about this call until your lawyer talks to me about that, and I'll give you an hour to have her give me a call. Okay?

Now I'm ready for the next telemarketer who calls.

Another update: One of the folks I'd asked has gotten back to me, and says that while he's not sure about the FTC rules, the FCC rules apply to all calls. This issue apparently has come up, and that was the FCC's response. Might be grounds for a challenge, but they'd consider this to be a violation.