NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Mark F) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > 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!
>
> **(Sigh...)** Did you sleep during all those Civics classes?
>
> The judge(s) who ordered schools to be integrated in the days of
> segregation overturned the will of a "very large population of the USA"
> as well. That's why we have three branches of government- checks
> and balances, remember? I'm certainly not trying to equate civil rights
> and anti-telemarketing laws in importance, but just making the point
> about judicial authority- they interpret the legality of law, they don't
> cowtow to "mob rule".
>
> There are plenty of remedies if this judge is wrong- appeals, new
> laws, etc.


Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right. We should have a
right to *ask* that companies not call us, and they should honor that
request. Segregation was wrong, setting up a list where the public says,
"Hey, I'd rather not be sold anything over the phone," is not, at least in
principle.

You have the freedom of speech in this country. You *don't* have the right
to force someone to listen to you speak. So, if the FCC overstepped their
boundaries, we need to find a workaround, because this is obviously
something the public wants.

---

› See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Mark F) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> > 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!
>
> **(Sigh...)** Did you sleep during all those Civics classes?
>
> The judge(s) who ordered schools to be integrated in the days of
> segregation overturned the will of a "very large population of the USA"
> as well. That's why we have three branches of government- checks
> and balances, remember? I'm certainly not trying to equate civil rights
> and anti-telemarketing laws in importance, but just making the point
> about judicial authority- they interpret the legality of law, they don't
> cowtow to "mob rule".
>
> There are plenty of remedies if this judge is wrong- appeals, new
> laws, etc.


Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right. We should have a
right to *ask* that companies not call us, and they should honor that
request. Segregation was wrong, setting up a list where the public says,
"Hey, I'd rather not be sold anything over the phone," is not, at least in
principle.

You have the freedom of speech in this country. You *don't* have the right
to force someone to listen to you speak. So, if the FCC overstepped their
boundaries, we need to find a workaround, because this is obviously
something the public wants.

"m thaler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected] (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


I've had tons of calls on my cell phone from soliciters when I was with
Sprint. I've had one with ATTWS, trying to get me to use their DSL service.
And I'm pretty sure the do not call list wouldn't prevent ATT from
contacting me again if they wanted.

"m thaler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected] (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


I've had tons of calls on my cell phone from soliciters when I was with
Sprint. I've had one with ATTWS, trying to get me to use their DSL service.
And I'm pretty sure the do not call list wouldn't prevent ATT from
contacting me again if they wanted.

>It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
>voice message to sell a product and/or service.

Yeah, and that law works really well.

I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.

[email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
>

Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
don't know about the law.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

[email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
>

Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
don't know about the law.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Dohhh!!!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer
generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.

Seems like quite a few house painters, landscapers, carpet cleaners,
and real estate agents have been using this tech for quite awhile, as
I get a lot of those calls during the week as well, and all those
calls are forwarded to my cell phone. It's to the point now that I
won't answer any "Unknown" calls showing up on caller ID.

Bob

"Dohhh!!!" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer
generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.

Seems like quite a few house painters, landscapers, carpet cleaners,
and real estate agents have been using this tech for quite awhile, as
I get a lot of those calls during the week as well, and all those
calls are forwarded to my cell phone. It's to the point now that I
won't answer any "Unknown" calls showing up on caller ID.

Bob

[email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
>

Ready?

Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227

"Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"

Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
machine etc..

Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
pre-recorded message

Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
is greater.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

[email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
>
> Yeah, and that law works really well.
>
> I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
>

Ready?

Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227

"Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"

Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
machine etc..

Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
pre-recorded message

Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
is greater.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> >
> > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> >
> > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> >
>
> Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
> don't know about the law.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]


I get them all the time as well. I'll start writing their info down instead
of just hanging up. We report this to the FCC, right?

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> >
> > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> >
> > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> >
>
> Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
> don't know about the law.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]


I get them all the time as well. I'll start writing their info down instead
of just hanging up. We report this to the FCC, right?

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> >
> > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> >
> > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> >
>
> Ready?
>
> Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227
>
> "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"
>
> Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
> machine etc..
>
> Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
> pre-recorded message
>
> Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
> from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
> is greater.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]



That's nuts! Do you know how many faxes we get per day?

"Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> >
> > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> >
> > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> >
>
> Ready?
>
> Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227
>
> "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"
>
> Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
> machine etc..
>
> Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
> pre-recorded message
>
> Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
> from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
> is greater.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]



That's nuts! Do you know how many faxes we get per day?