It’s done. Finally. The Seattle City Council today approved legislation (.pdf) that, despite the promise of a lawsuit, will prohibit phone book companies from distributing yellow pages to those on a city-enforced opt-out list.
The council voted 8-1 to approve the 14th draft of the ordinance, with council member Jean Godden casting the only dissenting vote. The ordinance places a fee on companies distributing yellow pages in the city, which Godden characterized as “quite a slippery slope.” Godden had said earlier that she was afraid the ordinance might set a precedence for other media, including newspapers.
The usual suspects showed up to protest—the Yellow Pages Association, Dex, et al—and released a statement immediately following the council vote saying that they would challenge the ordinance in court. Yellow Pages Association President Neg Norton told the council he was disappointed that the city had not picked the YPA-administered opt-out registry.
Under the new ordinance, which was sponsored by council member Mike O’Brien, yellow pages publishers would be fined up to $125 for distributing yellow pages to those who don’t want them. They would also be charged a 14 cents fee for every phone distributed in the city to cover the registry cost and a $148 recycling fee for every ton of phone book dropped off in Seattle. Seattle Public Utilities estimates that 2 million yellow pages phone books are distributed in Seattle annually, which costs $350,000 to recycle.
“It’s a great piece of free-market legislation, an important piece of environment legislation,” said council president Richard Conlin.
Seattle’s opt-out legislation is the first of its kind in the country and is expected to take place by April of next year. Although the ordinance had sparked concern among local business groups for being overly broad, they were addressed through amendments in the final version of the ordinance.
“Yellow Bellied Pages” is very cute.
Something I don’t get; why would Yellow Pages publishers WANT to distribute their books to people who pro-actively declare that they don’t want them? Seems to me the City is doing them a favor by compiling this list for them.
Um, maybe because they charge more for the advertising if they’re distributed to more people?
@2 Businesses pay to be included in the Yellow Pages and the amount is based largely on how many people receive them. By delivering to everyone, whether they want one or not, the publisher can show higher numbers to the businesses they are trying to convince to buy a spot and charge more for it. Having large numbers of people opt out would decrease the perceived value of buying a spot in the yellow pages, decreasing the number of businesses included and driving down prices for ads and profits for the publisher.
yellow pages, black pages, kenneth the pages, why can’t we all just get along?
How is this a slippery slope to an opt-out on newspapers? Aren’t newspapers exclusively opt-in? If you don’t want it, you just don’t pay them.
If, though, the slippery slope is that newspapers would have to pay for their recycling costs, that’s a consequence I can deal with. I hope they force junk mailers to pay recycling costs, too.
@2 and @4 – This is part of the issue I’ve never understood about the yellow pages. Are they claiming those circulation numbers based on books that sit rotting in front of apartment buildings, or are immediately recycled? Do the yellow pages issue white sheets?
godden was voting to protect the ancient, the only people who still use yellow pages.
@6 “I hope they force junk mailers to pay recycling costs, too.”
And I hope they force governments to pay for every bullet they fire.
Oh. Wait. Fuck.
These yellow pages people are like the crazy ex-girl (or boy-)friend that just can’t accept that s/he has been dumped. Fucking get over it, assholes. You’ve been replaced by the internet/fleshlight/iPhone/iDevice
The supposed threat of lawsuit cracks me up, too… there’s pretty good precedent out there in the ordinance’s favor — from the US Supreme Court decision Rowan v US Post Office (1970):
“We …categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even “good” ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often “captives” outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere…”
Sounds rather clear-cut.
@8 wins. Godden’s concern is that her ancient brethren will have nothing to sit on to see over the wheel of the land-yacht that they shouldn’t be legally allowed to drive.