NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

09-24-2003, 12:32 PM

Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

For the rest of the story CLICK HERE

09-24-2003, 02:56 PM

This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency appeal.

--
Chris

Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com

"PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
<wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
> fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
> I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
> Lets hope this stop is short lived.
>
> Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
> overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
> against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
> telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
> into effect Oct. 1.
>
> For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
> size=3D2>Since this has been=20
> discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
> encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
> interested,=20
> and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
> short=20
> lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97  A federal judge has ruled that the =
> Federal Trade=20
> Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
> do-not-call list=20
> against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
> telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> do not=20
> want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
> effect Oct.=20
> 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
> href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
> HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 03:20 PM

"Chris Russell" <noone@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:vn417o447gc1a9@corp.supernews.com...
> This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
> vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency
appeal.
>
> --
> Chris

I read in another news article where they felt they could overturn
this decision ... and if they can't, I hope that judge gets put on
every telephone list out there ...

Bob

09-24-2003, 04:00 PM

I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
for himself.

IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
--
Mark

noone@nospam.nospam (Chris Russell) wrote in article
<vn417o447gc1a9@corp.supernews.com>:
> This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
> vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency appeal.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
>
>
> "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
> <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
> > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
> > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
> > Lets hope this stop is short lived.
> >
> > Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
> > overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
> > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
> > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> > do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
> > into effect Oct. 1.
> >
> > For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
> > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> > Content-Type: text/html;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> > <HTML><HEAD>
> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> > charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
> > <STYLE></STYLE>
> > </HEAD>
> > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
> > size=3D2>Since this has been=20
> > discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
> > encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
> > interested,=20
> > and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
> > short=20
> > lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97  A federal judge has ruled that the =
> > Federal Trade=20
> > Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
> > do-not-call list=20
> > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
> > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> > do not=20
> > want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
> > effect Oct.=20
> > 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
> > href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
> > HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
> >
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 04:02 PM

"Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
news:vn450d8cauee45@corp.supernews.com...
> I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
> of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
> delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
> for himself.
>
> IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
> an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
> --
> Mark
>

You'd think that companies would at least honor the wishes of people who
don't want to be called, regardless of whether the FCC had the authority or
not. But they're just after money, so they don't care how annoying they
are.

09-24-2003, 04:22 PM

The last thing tele-marketers want to do is respect the right of the
person on the other end not wanting to be harassed by them. Greed
rules. With this action they can slam dunk anyone who tries to sue them
for being invasive into their lives.

"PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
<wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
> fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
> I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
> Lets hope this stop is short lived.
>
> Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
> overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
> against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
> telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
> into effect Oct. 1.
>
> For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Diso-8859-1">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
> size=3D2>Since this has been=20
> discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
> encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
> interested,=20
> and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
> short=20
> lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97  A federal judge has ruled that the =
> Federal Trade=20
> Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
> do-not-call list=20
> against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
> telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
> do not=20
> want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
> effect Oct.=20
> 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
> href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
> HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 04:22 PM

Just so you know, the FTC Federal Trade Commission effected the "Do Not
Call" list, not the FCC Federal Comunication Commission. The appeal
will probably go to the 3 judge panel in that district, or because of
the lateness of the hour the Supreme Court Justice that supervises that
state will accept an emergency appeal to the full Supreme Court with
consultation of the other Justices. Let's hope so.

--
Chris

Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com

"Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
<cd023309ccfd696f7bbd5220608515c4@news.teranews.co m>:
>
> "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
> news:vn450d8cauee45@corp.supernews.com...
> > I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
> > of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
> > delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
> > for himself.
> >
> > IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
> > an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
> > --
> > Mark
> >
>
>
> You'd think that companies would at least honor the wishes of people who
> don't want to be called, regardless of whether the FCC had the authority or
> not. But they're just after money, so they don't care how annoying they
> are.
>
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 05:00 PM

In article <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>, PDA Man wrote:

> Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
> fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
> I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
> Lets hope this stop is short lived.

All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
rid of solicitation calls on them.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: geoffrey_mendelson@hotmail.com (Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.

09-24-2003, 05:27 PM

PDA Man wrote:
> Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the
> fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this.
> I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start.
> Lets hope this stop is short lived.
>
> Sept 24 — A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission
> overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list
> against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by
> telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they
> do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go
> into effect Oct. 1.
>
> For the rest of the story CLICK HERE <http://palmplace.blogspot.com>

Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
as if anybody really cares.

--
jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know." -- Richard Wilbur

09-24-2003, 05:53 PM

Doesn't matter to me...I usually keep my phone off the hook and when I do answer it soon as I hear the idiot trying to sell me something, I hang up. They do call on weekends, during the most times when people are home....soon I'll just disconnect all together and just use my cell phone.

"PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message news:wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

For the rest of the story CLICK HERE

09-24-2003, 05:55 PM

Hahahaha, so now that list of phone numbers that the FTC has will be sold to the telemarketers!
"PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message news:wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

For the rest of the story CLICK HERE

09-24-2003, 06:31 PM

gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
stop is short lived.
>
> All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
> here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
> rid of solicitation calls on them.
>
> Geoff.
>
This has been discussed many times.
1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.

Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.

...mike

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 07:57 PM

There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.

xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
<vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>
> gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
> stop is short lived.
> >
> > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
> > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
> > rid of solicitation calls on them.
> >
> > Geoff.
> >
> This has been discussed many times.
> 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
> 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
> and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
> line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
> as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
> incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
> people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
> users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
>
> Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
> lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
> from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
> cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
>
>
> ...mike
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 08:12 PM

Just full of saturated info

wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
<vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
> There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
> computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
> unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
> local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
> themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
> of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
> don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
> interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
>
> xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
> <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
> >
> >
> > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
> > stop is short lived.
> > >
> > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
> > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
> > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> > This has been discussed many times.
> > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
> > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
> > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
> > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
> > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
> > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
> > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
> > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
> >
> > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
> > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
> > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
> > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
> >
> >
> > ...mike
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

09-24-2003, 08:15 PM

wow I should post my responses on every link too, ..........there just
saturated with info great work William!

wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
<vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
> There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
> computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
> unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
> local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
> themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
> of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
> don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
> interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
>
> xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
> <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
> >
> >
> > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
> > stop is short lived.
> > >
> > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
> > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
> > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
> > >
> > > Geoff.
> > >
> > This has been discussed many times.
> > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
> > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
> > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
> > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
> > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
> > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
> > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
> > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
> >
> > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
> > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
> > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
> > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
> >
> >
> > ...mike
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]