NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

"127.0.0.1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Al Klein wrote:
> >
> > Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
> > to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
> > commercial enterprises.

Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
during prime time?
Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
transmissions?
If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

---

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

Who said anything about listening?

Besides, I'll spend a couple of minutes screwing with their heads if
in the long run it means I get fewer calls.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 19:24:56 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
>> a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
>> the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
>> realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
>> like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
>> without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
>> some more.
>>
>> The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
>> abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
>> means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
>> making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
>> employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
>> the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
>> their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
>> they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
>> not just ours.
>
>
>Sounds to me you've got way too much idle time on your hands. I
>don't. I'm busy doing things 24x7, eight days a week. I don't have
>time, nor am I likely to be in the mood to listen to some dork pitch
>something that I either already have or don't want. Besides, the more
>time I spend on a crummy phone call, the less time my paid-for phone
>line isn't available for the purpose I got it for.
>
>You're welcome to screw with their heads all you want, but for myself,
>if I don't recognise the number, or if I just don't want to talk on
>the phone, voice mail works just fine for me. As for them, I couldn't
>care less what they want nor why they want it. Apparently, they have
>some nefarious constitutional right to speak, but that can't possibly
>include any constitutional obligation for me to listen. And the
>reason it can't is because I'm not going to let it. Yes, I put my
>phone numbers on the DNC list just because I could, not that I ever
>expected anyone to give a ****. I apologise if I've offended any
>telemarketers around here - it's not personal, but whether you're
>employed or not isn't something I honestly care about. We're all
>known by the company we keep, so do the math. Get over it and get on
>with your life as best you can - I certainly am.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:17:39 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> posted in
>alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>>Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
>>mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
>>commercial enterprises.
>
>Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
>from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
>can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
>from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
>speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
>a lot easier.

.... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
yours on the counter and walking away. Make it unprofitable for them.
If enough people do it, the karma thing will kick in and someone doing
this will keep them from calling you once in a while.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:

> ... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
> the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
> yours on the counter and walking away.

I also put down by a clock radio I turn on, so it can activate any Voice
Activated questioning if illegal pre-recorded calls.

Once I answered a pre recorded message saying I was Baron Von Hindenburg.

10 minutes later, a live telemarketer called asking for the Baron.
I apologized, said he had died the week before after a Blimp accident.

127.0.0.1 wrote:

> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Al Klein wrote:
>>
>>Al, I believe I understand the tenet behind the constitution's angle
>>to free speech - I just don't happen to agree with it when applied to
>>commercial enterprises. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
>>not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
>>a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
>>with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
>>with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
>>as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
>>money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
>>marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
>>my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
>>that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
>>some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
>>So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
>>phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.
>>
>>If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
>>better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
>>twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
>>without prior explicit authorisation.
>>
>
>
> open your eyes, if you have cable tv, then the marketeers have already
> influenced you... why are you driving that particular car? why do you like
> attractive women? what makes them attractive?
>
> do you have a job? do wonder why? yes... business wants your money so you
> can get paid...
> marketing and advertising is a main part of business. without it, you will
> be left with only a corner neighborhood shop.
>
> how did you choose all your services from cell phone to label on your
> clothes? advertising and marketing...
> you are living in a consumer world. don't forget that.


I don't forget we live in a consumer world, but I make my own choices
through my own research. I don't need commercial adverts to inform me
of my options. I have two functional synapses, one for each side, and
neither cares one whit about commercial adverts.

--
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

[email protected] wrote:

> Who said anything about listening?
>
> Besides, I'll spend a couple of minutes screwing with their heads if
> in the long run it means I get fewer calls.



Okay, you screw with their heads while I ignore the ringing phone and
screw with someone else. We all have our priorities.

--
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

>Let us not forget that there is a *MAJOR* difference between commercial free
>speech and private free speech. Many of the messages I have seen just use
>the free speech rather than the commercial free speech.
>For instance (just to pick a simple example), why do certain groups *NOT*
>advertise on television? Anyone seen Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
>movie groups etc advertise on prime time Television and Radio? Come to think
>of it, anyone ever see the telemarketing people advertise on TV and Radio
>during prime time?
>Yet there are political and charity ads on TV during prime time.
>Seems to me that if there are already restrictions on ads going in to your
>home at certain times (whether over the air or cable), why can't those same
>restrictions apply to telephone wires that apply to cable and OTA
>transmissions?
>If we apply the same standards as ads on TV and radio to the phone, we could
>cut the Telemarketers off at the knees.

In fact, according to court rulings starting with the Supreme Court one
regarding commercial "soft money" contributions to political parties being
free speech, there is essentially NO legal difference between commercial and
private free speech. None. The current ruling on the "do not call list" (since
upheld by a second judge, and no doubt to be upheld by every other court
before which it will come) is just another example of this concept.

Congress is going to have to find some other way around implementing this sort
of list because short of a miracle, it's dead in the water legally. Although I
registered all my numbers on the list, I never could imagine it going into
service as it's structured now.

It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed VOLUNTARILY by
the stations themselves.

The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types of
ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise in
exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air), not
because of any legal restrictions whatsoever. If CBS decided tomorrow to carry
ads for the next big Nazi Party rally, or the film "Julie Sucks Off A Party Of
Seven", there is nothing anyone could legally do about it. Nothing.

The thing about free speech is, it also applies to speech you don't like.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types
of
> ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise in
> exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air), not
> because of any legal restrictions whatsoever. If CBS decided tomorrow to
carry
> ads for the next big Nazi Party rally, or the film "Julie Sucks Off A
Party Of
> Seven", there is nothing anyone could legally do about it. Nothing.

http://www.uchsc.edu/sm/cihl/history...ette_smoke.htm

tv cigarette advertising was banned in 1971

there are still 1-900-sex-call ads on late nite tv.
x-rated movie ads (girls gone wild) sponsors the howard stern show on E.

i'm not sure about the difference btw hard and soft liquor ads are but beer
commercials are a standard.

i'm sure holocaust victims will file law suits against CBS if they allow
those advertisements.
you can see "Julie Sucks Off A Party Of Seven" ads on the Spice Network

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:20:52 -0700, <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
> television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed
> VOLUNTARILY by
> the stations themselves.
>
> The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
> movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those types
> of
> ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to advertise
> in
> exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air),
> not
> because of any legal restrictions whatsoever.

If you wish to contribute to this thread and not look like an idiot, as
you currently
do, please check your facts before doing so.

Anti-smoking ads air regularly.

The fact is, that the Federal Government has for a long time restricted
free speech,
both by compelling speech and by restricting it:

"Since 1966, the US Surgeon General's health warnings have been required
on all
cigarette packages and, since 1987, on all smokeless tobacco products.
Congress
banned television and radio cigarette advertising on TV and radio in 1971
and
smokeless tobacco advertising in 1987."
-
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...and_Health.asp

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research actual US Code
cites.

--
Mark

Mark Allread wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:20:52 -0700, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is also a common misconception that there are legal restrictions on
>> television ads. There are virtually none, except those imposed
>> VOLUNTARILY by
>> the stations themselves.
>>
>> The reason you don't see ads for "Cigs/Hard Liquor/Hate groups/x rated
>> movies" is because the broadcasters VOLUNTARILY don't accept those
>> types of
>> ads (or, in the case of cigs, the manufacturers agreed not to
>> advertise in
>> exchange for public service anti-smoking ads being taken off the air),
>> not
>> because of any legal restrictions whatsoever.
>
>
> If you wish to contribute to this thread and not look like an idiot, as
> you currently
> do, please check your facts before doing so.
>
> Anti-smoking ads air regularly.
>
> The fact is, that the Federal Government has for a long time restricted
> free speech,
> both by compelling speech and by restricting it:
>
> "Since 1966, the US Surgeon General's health warnings have been required
> on all
> cigarette packages and, since 1987, on all smokeless tobacco products.
> Congress
> banned television and radio cigarette advertising on TV and radio in
> 1971 and
> smokeless tobacco advertising in 1987."
> -
> http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...and_Health.asp
>
>
> I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to research actual US Code
> cites.
>

And while they're researching relevant cites, I'll sit here watching
all the hopes and aspirations of free speech advocates across the land
fly right out the window. Compelling someone to not do something by
threatening to yank his/her permit is the same thing as compelling a
jurist to vote a certain way by threatening to yank his/her chain.
But then again, I'm no judge nor politician, and neither do I accept
bribes, er... soft money contributions.

And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.


--
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

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Allread wrote:
>
> And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
> yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
> business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.

i thought they already done that awhile ago because of the tobacco ad bans
on tv. PM kept it's trademark red and white colors without the marlboro
name so it can still be seen on tv motorsports.

> 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
>

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 20:36:28 GMT, 127.0.0.1 <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Mark Allread wrote:
>>
>> And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
>> yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
>> business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.

Please learn how to properly trim responses. The above is NOT from me.

--
Mark

> "Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>And before anybody mentions it, I read that Phillip Morris USA is
>>yanking the Marlboro name from motor sports as a result of a voluntary
>>business decision, not as a result of any legal wrangling.
>
>
> i thought they already done that awhile ago because of the tobacco ad bans
> on tv. PM kept it's trademark red and white colors without the marlboro
> name so it can still be seen on tv motorsports.

Yes, the National Association of Attorneys General pressured tobacco
companies under their own settlement rule interpretation. PM had a
number of logo contracts in a variety of motor sports venues, yet they
ceased their sponsorship under NAAG pressure without actual court
action. RJ Reynolds (Winston) and Player's Ltd. (Canadian firm owned
by PM) was also caught up in the fray, and made similar decisions.

Clearly, this free speech issue with commercial companies doesn't
always travel under full sails the way some would like to believe.
When politicians play fast and loose with the rules, the freedom wind
often turns south.


--
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

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 00:55:57 GMT, [email protected] posted in
alt.cellular.verizon:

>On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 03:17:39 GMT, Al Klein <[email protected]> wrote:

>>speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
>>a lot easier.

>... and a lot less effective. Then they keep on going until they find
>the old lady who can't say no. Tie up their phone by just putting
>yours on the counter and walking away. Make it unprofitable for them.
>If enough people do it, the karma thing will kick in and someone doing
>this will keep them from calling you once in a while.

Good point.

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

> This has been discussed many times.
> 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.

Here they do :-(

> 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 land line bill? I do not have a land line, so I do not have a
land
line bill. In anyway few people make land likne to cellular calls as
they are more expensive than cellular to cellular.

> 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.

Ands what do they pay for those plans. In Finland average customer
pays under 30 euros a month. Many pay much less. If you make few or no
calls you can pay under 5 euros a month. There are unlimited plans
also here though only intra-operator. They start from as low as 8.33
a month (unlimited calls to a single number)

In anyway the CPP does not prevent telemarketers form calling as the
call costs only about 10 cents a minute to them if done properly (i.e.
through appropriate mobile operator and not land to mobile.) The cost
of
labor is much higher, average in Finland or in EU is 37 cents a
minute.
So mobile numbers are just additional expense to them, nothing
serious.

>
> Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
> lines entirely in favor of cel phones.

Same here. Especially among young people land line is more
like an exception. 92% of households have at least one cellular
phone and only 68% have a landline. In 1990 the numbers were 7% and
94%
respectively. When young people here move out of home they simply keep
their mobile and do nto get a land line. Landlines are expensive,
about
100 euros to start (not including labor and the actual phone) and
over 10 euros a month. When one moves there is extra expense.

> 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.
>

I see no point in such forwarding as people can call the cell phone
directly from their own cell phones. This is often cheper than calling
a landline. I a company wants, it can get here a number where such
redirection is free. The caller (from a landline) pays different
amount depending on whether the redirection is on.

Osmo