FCC Record, Volume 7, No. 26, Pages 8528 to 9008, December 14 - December 24, 1992 Page: 8,769

30. MWby cmIenteres the view that any teleqimne subscriber that
provides his or her teler e mber to a busi des e so with the expectation
that the party to the er given will return the call. e, any
telhone subscriber who leases his or her teltxne ber has, in effect,
g iven po press consent to be called by the entity to which the naster was
released.56 Private Citizen urges the mission to reject this inte tation
and points out that sae 800 Mers have the capacity to reard the teleqfne
nasrer of an incoming call witt the caller's kanwlege or consent. It urges
the OCburssion to clarify that telerketers nay not use the tel ne d uters
of persons who call to make inquiries without exp sly requesting permission
to use the number for that prpcse.
31. We enwhasize that u r the prohibitions set forth In 5 227(b) (1) and
in §§ 64.1200 (a)-(d) of our rules, only calls placed by autatic tel
dialing yte or using an artificial or prereoed voice are prohibited. If
a call is otherwise subject to the prohibitions of 5 64.1200, persons who
knowingly rele their pine asters have in effect given their invitation or
permission to be called at the anser which they have given, absent
instructions to the contrary.57 Hence, telrketer will t violate our
rules by calling a n er which was provided as one at tich the calledart
wishes to be reached. However, if a caller's nastoer is "captured" tby a Caller
ID or an MI device witinut notice to the residential tel e subscriber, the
caller cannot be considered to have given an invitation or penssion to
receive autodialer or prerecorded voice message calls. therefore, calls nay be
placed to captured" er only if such calls fall under the existing
exsnptions to the restrictions on autodialer and prerecordd message calls.
3.
32. Established Buaw inS tatiip. e 2 ef tentatively concled
that the privacy rights the TCPA intended to protect throw the prohibition on
prerecorded message cals to residences are not advesely affected here the
called party has or had a voluntary busis relationship with the caller.
tet centers support the pr ed e ptim in the M for calls to person
with han the caller has a prior or existing si relationship. CC argues
that the proposed exception is overrad because it extes beya! current or
orgoing business relationships to prior bsinss relationships. Further, CSC
contends that the TCPA intended to eispt bhiis relati hip calls only fran
its restrictions on live peration solicitations and at fran the autodialer
prohibitions. CSC naintair that, at a ndnimn, the Oudssi should reuire
actual consent to telepkxxe solicitatics and must clearly provide a eans by
which consumers y tany such elat ip.
56 S, e_.g., carments of Citicxp am J.C. Peey.
57 aouse Report, 102-317, 1st Sees., 102nd Oxa. (1991), at p. 13, which
suworts this interpretation, noting that in such inetamnes .the called party
has in essence requested the contact by providing the caller with their
telepne number for use in noal b iusiss omnications.'

8769