Results 16 to 30 of 62
- 09-24-2003, 08:16 PM #16dan allenGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
Oh my Gosh, thats three outstanding!
[email protected] (William Bray) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> 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.
>
> [email protected] (m thaler) wrote in article
> <[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
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]
[posted via phonescoop.com]
› See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
- 09-24-2003, 08:17 PM #17dan allenGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
you are the most amazing person!
[email protected] (William Bray) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> 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.
>
> [email protected] (m thaler) wrote in article
> <[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
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-24-2003, 10:35 PM #18Todd AllcockGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
[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.
- 09-24-2003, 11:00 PM #19JerGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
William Bray wrote:
> 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.
That's not true, even telemarketers that use randomizers are still
required to filter out non-dialable numbers, ie. cell phones, pagers.
An unlisted landline number can still be dialed. The only
telemarketers that use "prescribed lists" (limited dialing scope) are
dialing for demographic purposes.
On any given day there could be one or more landline numbers forwarded
to my cell, and the instant they learn they're talking to me on a cell
- they're gone, incorrectly assuming they've dialed a cell number
directly.
--
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
- 09-25-2003, 03:18 AM #20Tech GeekGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
[email protected] (m thaler) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> >
> This has been discussed many times.
> 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
In fact, its against the law, and after the first warning, you can sue
them for damages or $500, whichever is greater.
(I have the law printed out at work and give copies to customers who
complain about telemarketers).
It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
voice message to sell a product and/or service.
[posted via phonescoop.com]
- 09-25-2003, 03:51 AM #21Phill.Guest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Tech Geek) wrote:
>
>
> [email protected] (m thaler) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > This has been discussed many times.
> > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
>
> In fact, its against the law, and after the first warning, you can sue
> them for damages or $500, whichever is greater.
>
> (I have the law printed out at work and give copies to customers who
> complain about telemarketers).
>
> It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> voice message to sell a product and/or service.
Its also against the Industry Adopted Consumer Code to have a map that
does not show where cell service is generally available.
- 09-25-2003, 05:16 AM #22Geoffrey S. MendelsonGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
In article <[email protected]>, m thaler wrote:
> 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.
Here in Israel the rate for calling a cell phone from a landline is very
high about 30 cents a minute. That's because the phone service used to be
provided by the Post Office. It has since been privatized, and the company
that was formed is called BEZEQ, and it is a protected monopoly far
more than the "Bell System" of old.
My cell phone is from Orange and outgoing calls costs me about $.12 a
minute from 6:30 to 21:30 and $.06 after that for any phone in the
country: landline, cellular, local or long distance. Calls between
family members are at a 90% discount.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson [email protected] 972-54-608-069
Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: [email protected] (Not for email)
Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.
- 09-25-2003, 07:20 AM #23JustinGuest
Re: 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.
- 09-25-2003, 07:21 AM #24JustinGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
"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.
- 09-25-2003, 10:17 AM #25Dohhh!!!Guest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
>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.
- 09-25-2003, 10:32 AM #26Tech GeekGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
[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]
- 09-25-2003, 10:32 AM #27Bob SmithGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
"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
- 09-25-2003, 10:38 AM #28Tech GeekGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
[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]
- 09-25-2003, 11:29 AM #29JustinGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
"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?
- 09-25-2003, 11:30 AM #30JustinGuest
Re: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
"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?
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.motorola
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.cingular
- alt.cellular.motorola
- alt.cellular.nextel
icecasino
in Chit Chat