Who's Got Your Number?

March 21, 2005
Who's Got Your Number?
This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
isn't looking so good.
By JESSE DRUCKER
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Getting in touch should be easier than ever these days.

National telephone directories mean you can call 411 and get business
and home numbers from across the street or across the country. Finding
someone's e-mail address often just requires typing their name and the
word "email" into Google.

But just try finding a person's cellphone number. There is no
centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
cellphone customers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be found.
But for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
who want their own numbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
of a directory is a hassle.

A few months ago, it seemed the void was about to be filled. A group
hired by the cellphone industry's main trade association said 2005
would finally be the year cellphone numbers become available in a
national wireless directory.

But now the directory is in trouble, with the biggest carriers
expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
building a directory of their customers' numbers.

What went wrong? Two surveys have suggested that a majority of
cellphone customers don't want their numbers listed. And Verizon
Wireless, the country's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
subscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
that such a directory could lead to an increase in state regulations,
and that its customers fear their privacy would be threatened.
Chicago-based U.S. Cellular Corp. also opposes the plan.

Meanwhile, Cingular Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
serve a combined roughly 80 million customers -- say they support a
directory in theory. But they say they are not planning to make their
customers' numbers available in such a directory this year.

In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
publicity, some of which resulted from testimony before Congress last
September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
committee considering regulation for a national wireless directory,
Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that such a directory could
violate customers' privacy.

Some of the reluctant carriers also fear the spread of regulations in
the wake of a law passed in California late last year requiring that
customers' signatures be obtained before their numbers can be put in a
directory.

"We're going to continue to explore it for the longer term," says a
spokeswoman for Cingular, the country's biggest carrier, with 49
million subscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint venture of
SBC Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.

A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
million subscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
efforts pending the outcome of legislative and regulatory issues.

Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Communications Inc. and
T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling numbers of their
customers, who together total about 32 million. T-Mobile, a unit of
Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG, says it aims to launch the offering
during the fourth quarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
will be available by the end of 2005.

"Our customers have been asking us for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
She notes that the carrier's subscribers are largely business
customers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
agreed to be acquired by Sprint.

Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
by cellular carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
set in, say they are continuing their preparations. They predict that
the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone customers start using the
service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, but the reality
is: It's just 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
"Consumers call 411 looking either for a person or a business. If those
people or businesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
consumer."

While some say the last thing wireless customers want now is a way for
telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refuge of
telecommunications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
He says that the directory will include only numbers of people who opt
in, and that their numbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the customers
have to pay for the call.

Some alternatives exist for cellphone customers who want to list their
numbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. --
majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list your cellular number in
their regular directories.

But it'll cost you: Verizon's current service requires customers to pay
an initial sign-up fee to list cellphone numbers or other "foreign"
listings, as it calls them, like 800 numbers or non-Verizon numbers.
Verizon's sign-up fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.

But Verizon Wireless says there isn't enough demand to justify setting
up a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
"we just don't see enough of a demand for this service to put the
resources behind it to pursue it with the privacy safeguards we need,"
says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The industry doesn't need
to be pursuing this when it ought to be putting resources into
improving service."

In one of the surveys, about a quarter of cellphone users said they
would like a directory if it were operated under the conditions
proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone numbers would not appear in a
printed directory and would not be sold.

In addition, proposed federal legislation would ban carriers from
including numbers unless consumers opt in. Organizations like the
Consumers Union and the AARP say that guarantees of such protections
shouldn't depend merely on the voluntary pledges of the carriers.
Codifying protections in legislation "shouldn't be such a big deal,"
says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union,
and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
consumers.

Although the federal effort to regulate wireless directories has
stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
restrictions implemented in California, Connecticut Attorney General
Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to several major cellular carriers
seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.

---

› See More: Who's Got Your Number?

MrPepper11 wrote:
>
> March 21, 2005
> Who's Got Your Number?
> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> isn't looking so good.
> By JESSE DRUCKER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> <snip>

I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.

Notan

Thats the whole point - most of the people that I know if not all DON'T
want their mobile listed. Thats the reason that most of us sut the cord to
begin with. I dread the day of a wireless directory and then the
telemarketing calls that will follow

RJ




"MrPepper11" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> March 21, 2005
> Who's Got Your Number?
> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> isn't looking so good.
> By JESSE DRUCKER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> Getting in touch should be easier than ever these days.
>
> National telephone directories mean you can call 411 and get business
> and home numbers from across the street or across the country. Finding
> someone's e-mail address often just requires typing their name and the
> word "email" into Google.
>
> But just try finding a person's cellphone number. There is no
> centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
> cellphone customers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be found.
> But for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
> who want their own numbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
> of a directory is a hassle.
>
> A few months ago, it seemed the void was about to be filled. A group
> hired by the cellphone industry's main trade association said 2005
> would finally be the year cellphone numbers become available in a
> national wireless directory.
>
> But now the directory is in trouble, with the biggest carriers
> expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
> building a directory of their customers' numbers.
>
> What went wrong? Two surveys have suggested that a majority of
> cellphone customers don't want their numbers listed. And Verizon
> Wireless, the country's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
> subscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
> that such a directory could lead to an increase in state regulations,
> and that its customers fear their privacy would be threatened.
> Chicago-based U.S. Cellular Corp. also opposes the plan.
>
> Meanwhile, Cingular Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
> serve a combined roughly 80 million customers -- say they support a
> directory in theory. But they say they are not planning to make their
> customers' numbers available in such a directory this year.
>
> In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
> publicity, some of which resulted from testimony before Congress last
> September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
> committee considering regulation for a national wireless directory,
> Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that such a directory could
> violate customers' privacy.
>
> Some of the reluctant carriers also fear the spread of regulations in
> the wake of a law passed in California late last year requiring that
> customers' signatures be obtained before their numbers can be put in a
> directory.
>
> "We're going to continue to explore it for the longer term," says a
> spokeswoman for Cingular, the country's biggest carrier, with 49
> million subscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint venture of
> SBC Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.
>
> A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
> million subscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
> efforts pending the outcome of legislative and regulatory issues.
>
> Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
> offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Communications Inc. and
> T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling numbers of their
> customers, who together total about 32 million. T-Mobile, a unit of
> Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG, says it aims to launch the offering
> during the fourth quarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
> will be available by the end of 2005.
>
> "Our customers have been asking us for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
> She notes that the carrier's subscribers are largely business
> customers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
> agreed to be acquired by Sprint.
>
> Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
> by cellular carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
> set in, say they are continuing their preparations. They predict that
> the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone customers start using the
> service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, but the reality
> is: It's just 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
> "Consumers call 411 looking either for a person or a business. If those
> people or businesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
> consumer."
>
> While some say the last thing wireless customers want now is a way for
> telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refuge of
> telecommunications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
> He says that the directory will include only numbers of people who opt
> in, and that their numbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
> law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the customers
> have to pay for the call.
>
> Some alternatives exist for cellphone customers who want to list their
> numbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. --
> majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list your cellular number in
> their regular directories.
>
> But it'll cost you: Verizon's current service requires customers to pay
> an initial sign-up fee to list cellphone numbers or other "foreign"
> listings, as it calls them, like 800 numbers or non-Verizon numbers.
> Verizon's sign-up fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
> New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
> Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.
>
> But Verizon Wireless says there isn't enough demand to justify setting
> up a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
> "we just don't see enough of a demand for this service to put the
> resources behind it to pursue it with the privacy safeguards we need,"
> says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The industry doesn't need
> to be pursuing this when it ought to be putting resources into
> improving service."
>
> In one of the surveys, about a quarter of cellphone users said they
> would like a directory if it were operated under the conditions
> proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone numbers would not appear in a
> printed directory and would not be sold.
>
> In addition, proposed federal legislation would ban carriers from
> including numbers unless consumers opt in. Organizations like the
> Consumers Union and the AARP say that guarantees of such protections
> shouldn't depend merely on the voluntary pledges of the carriers.
> Codifying protections in legislation "shouldn't be such a big deal,"
> says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union,
> and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
> consumers.
>
> Although the federal effort to regulate wireless directories has
> stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
> restrictions implemented in California, Connecticut Attorney General
> Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to several major cellular carriers
> seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.
>

Originally Posted by RJ

Thats the whole point - most of the people that I know if not all DON'T
want their mobile listed. Thats the reason that most of us sut the cord to
begin with. I dread the day of a wireless directory and then the
telemarketing calls that will follow

RJ




"MrPepper11" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> March 21, 2005
> Who's Got Your Number?
> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> isn't looking so good.
> By JESSE DRUCKER
> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
> Getting in touch should be easier than ever these days.
>
> National telephone directories mean you can call 411 and get business
> and home numbers from across the street or across the country. Finding
> someone's e-mail address often just requires typing their name and the
> word "email" into Google.
>
> But just try finding a person's cellphone number. There is no
> centralized wireless directory in the U.S. To a majority of U.S.
> cellphone customers, this is a good thing. They don't want to be found.
> But for the millions of others who rely solely on their cellphones, and
> who want their own numbers and those of others to be listed, the lack
> of a directory is a hassle.
>
> A few months ago, it seemed the void was about to be filled. A group
> hired by the cellphone industry's main trade association said 2005
> would finally be the year cellphone numbers become available in a
> national wireless directory.
>
> But now the directory is in trouble, with the biggest carriers
> expressing reservations and only two that are still committed to
> building a directory of their customers' numbers.
>
> What went wrong? Two surveys have suggested that a majority of
> cellphone customers don't want their numbers listed. And Verizon
> Wireless, the country's No. 2 provider with nearly 44 million
> subscribers, has lobbied vocally against the plan, complaining both
> that such a directory could lead to an increase in state regulations,
> and that its customers fear their privacy would be threatened.
> Chicago-based U.S. Cellular Corp. also opposes the plan.
>
> Meanwhile, Cingular Wireless, Sprint Corp. and Alltel Corp. -- who
> serve a combined roughly 80 million customers -- say they support a
> directory in theory. But they say they are not planning to make their
> customers' numbers available in such a directory this year.
>
> In some cases, these carriers say they have been spooked by bad
> publicity, some of which resulted from testimony before Congress last
> September by Verizon Wireless officials and others. Appearing before a
> committee considering regulation for a national wireless directory,
> Verizon Wireless CEO Denny Strigl said that such a directory could
> violate customers' privacy.
>
> Some of the reluctant carriers also fear the spread of regulations in
> the wake of a law passed in California late last year requiring that
> customers' signatures be obtained before their numbers can be put in a
> directory.
>
> "We're going to continue to explore it for the longer term," says a
> spokeswoman for Cingular, the country's biggest carrier, with 49
> million subscribers. The company is an Atlanta-based joint venture of
> SBC Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp.
>
> A spokesman for Alltel, of Little Rock, Ark., which has more than eight
> million subscribers, says it has stopped actively participating in the
> efforts pending the outcome of legislative and regulatory issues.
>
> Two other carriers are sticking with the original plan and hope to
> offer a service by the end of this year. Nextel Communications Inc. and
> T-Mobile USA Inc. say they have started compiling numbers of their
> customers, who together total about 32 million. T-Mobile, a unit of
> Germany's Deutsche Telekom AG, says it aims to launch the offering
> during the fourth quarter. Nextel says it's a "strong possibility" it
> will be available by the end of 2005.
>
> "Our customers have been asking us for it," says a Nextel spokeswoman.
> She notes that the carrier's subscribers are largely business
> customers, who tend to want their services listed. In December, Nextel
> agreed to be acquired by Sprint.
>
> Meanwhile, officials from Qsent Inc., the Portland, Ore., company hired
> by cellular carriers to assemble a national directory before the chill
> set in, say they are continuing their preparations. They predict that
> the privacy concerns will fade once cellphone customers start using the
> service and see the benefits. "We call it wireless 411, but the reality
> is: It's just 411," says Greg Keene, Qsent's chief privacy officer.
> "Consumers call 411 looking either for a person or a business. If those
> people or businesses are now in 411...that's a benefit to the
> consumer."
>
> While some say the last thing wireless customers want now is a way for
> telemarketers to infiltrate what they view as a last refuge of
> telecommunications privacy, Mr. Keene says those fears are misplaced.
> He says that the directory will include only numbers of people who opt
> in, and that their numbers will not be shared with marketers. Federal
> law prohibits telemarketing calls to cellphones, since the customers
> have to pay for the call.
>
> Some alternatives exist for cellphone customers who want to list their
> numbers. Telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. --
> majority owner of Verizon Wireless -- will list your cellular number in
> their regular directories.
>
> But it'll cost you: Verizon's current service requires customers to pay
> an initial sign-up fee to list cellphone numbers or other "foreign"
> listings, as it calls them, like 800 numbers or non-Verizon numbers.
> Verizon's sign-up fees range from $12.32 in Rhode Island to $35.90 in
> New York. There is a monthly fee as well, ranging from $1.05 in New
> Jersey and Maryland to $3.05 in Rhode Island.
>
> But Verizon Wireless says there isn't enough demand to justify setting
> up a wireless directory. In addition to the company's other objections,
> "we just don't see enough of a demand for this service to put the
> resources behind it to pursue it with the privacy safeguards we need,"
> says Verizon Wireless spokesman Jim Gerace. "The industry doesn't need
> to be pursuing this when it ought to be putting resources into
> improving service."
>
> In one of the surveys, about a quarter of cellphone users said they
> would like a directory if it were operated under the conditions
> proposed by Qsent: Listed cellphone numbers would not appear in a
> printed directory and would not be sold.
>
> In addition, proposed federal legislation would ban carriers from
> including numbers unless consumers opt in. Organizations like the
> Consumers Union and the AARP say that guarantees of such protections
> shouldn't depend merely on the voluntary pledges of the carriers.
> Codifying protections in legislation "shouldn't be such a big deal,"
> says Janee Briesemeister, a senior policy analyst with Consumers Union,
> and the campaign manager for EscapeCellHell.org, a Web site for
> consumers.
>
> Although the federal effort to regulate wireless directories has
> stalled, several states are moving on their own. In addition to the
> restrictions implemented in California, Connecticut Attorney General
> Richard Blumenthal has sent letters to several major cellular carriers
> seeking to prevent the creation of a wireless directory.
>

You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.

C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it for what it's intended for.

Brian Gordon wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >> March 21, 2005
> >> Who's Got Your Number?
> >> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> >> isn't looking so good.
> >> By JESSE DRUCKER
> >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

The people that I associate with, only give their cell phone numbers
to people that they want to have them.

Among other things, it keeps them from getting unsolicited sales calls,
etc.

Notan

scott14661 wrote:

> You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
> Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
> though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
> telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>
> C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
> for what it's intended for.

Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
even go into the potential for sms spam.

Bill K

In article <[email protected]>, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>
>> March 21, 2005
>> Who's Got Your Number?
>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
>> isn't looking so good.
>> By JESSE DRUCKER
>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>
>> <snip>
>
>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>
>Notan

You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->[email protected]<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:06:52 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>*In article <[email protected]>, Notan
>*<[email protected]>*wrote:
>
>>*MrPepper11 wrote:
>>
>>>*March 21, 2005
>>>*Who's Got Your Number?
>>>*This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless
>>>*directory. It isn't looking so good. By JESSE DRUCKER Staff
>>>*Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>
>>>*<snip>
>>>
>>*I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number
>>*listed.
>>
>>*Notan
>>
>*You must not have many cellphone only friends. *I have several with
>*no landline at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number,
>*you just can't find them.

I have not had a landline for over two years now. The people I want to findme have my number because I gave it to them. I do not want my numberpublished. That would mean sales calls every few minutes.

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Copeland <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Brian Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>landline
>> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>them.
>
>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>simply ask for their phone number.
>
>

I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
don't see each other that often.

--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->[email protected]<-- brian.gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad) +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

"Brian Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
them.

Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
simply ask for their phone number.

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 02:06:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Brian
Gordon) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Notan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>MrPepper11 wrote:
>>>
>>> March 21, 2005
>>> Who's Got Your Number?
>>> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
>>> isn't looking so good.
>>> By JESSE DRUCKER
>>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
>>
>>Notan
>
>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no landline
>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find them.


That's probably why they are cellphone only. If you were really their
friend, you'd get the number.

I don't have a land line and I would not want my cell phone number published
anywhere. I pay for minutes and I don't want to be bothered with useless
telemarketing phone calls to my cell phone. Who would want their cell number
published? Not me!

"Brian Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Notan <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >MrPepper11 wrote:
> >>
> >> March 21, 2005
> >> Who's Got Your Number?
> >> This was supposed to be the year for a national wireless directory. It
> >> isn't looking so good.
> >> By JESSE DRUCKER
> >> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >I've never met a person who *wanted* their cell phone number listed.
> >
> >Notan
>
> You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
landline
> at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
them.
>
> --
>
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+-+
> | Brian Gordon -->[email protected]<-- brian.gordon at cox dot
net |
> + Bass: "Spirit of Phoenix" SPEBSQSA Chorus (and Gotcha! dad)
+
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
-+-+-

Brian Gordon wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Todd Copeland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Brian Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>You must not have many cellphone only friends. I have several with no
>>
>>landline
>>
>>>at all, so if you can't find their cellphone number, you just can't find
>>
>>them.
>>
>>Of course, if you knew them well enough to call them friends you could
>>simply ask for their phone number.
>>
>>
>
>
> I plan to -- as soon as our paths cross again. They are ~50 miles away and we
> don't see each other that often.
>


What? They didn't leave their new number on a referral recording?

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

Bill Kraski wrote:

> scott14661 wrote:
>
>
>>You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
>>Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
>>though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
>>telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>>
>>C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>>for what it's intended for.
>
>
> Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
> listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
> for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
> registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
> area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
> numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
> know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
> portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
> number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
> of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
> take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
> even go into the potential for sms spam.
>
> Bill K
>


Listed or not, unsolicited sales calls to cell phones continues to be
barred. Yes, it may be difficult for a telemarketer to deal with that,
but it's still their responsibility to do so.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

"Bill Kraski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news2J3e.4497$pU5.3482@trnddc06...
> scott14661 wrote:
>
>> You're not goin to get telemarketing calls if you register for the "Do
>> Not Call List". I reistered my house phone and my cell phone, even
>> though I've never had a telemarketer call my cell phone. But the
>> telemarketing phone calls at home have stopped.
>>
>> C'mon people that's why the "Do Not Call List" was designed. Use it
>> for what it's intended for.
>
> Have you ever fully read what's involved? There is a time limit on being
> listed in the DNCR -- I believe it's five years. You need to reregister
> for it to continue. How many people will realize that at the end of the
> registered period? If the more rabid marketers keep a database of their
> area, with registration dates, there's a list of previously unknown phone
> numbers that's ready to call in 5 years, including cell phone numbers. I
> know the law prohibits marketing to cell phone numbers, but number
> portability makes it hard for a marketer to know what type of phone a
> number is connected to. So, cell phones listed may end up getting a bunch
> of marketing calls, with the phone owner needing to tell each caller to
> take them off the calling list or that it's a cell number. And I won't
> even go into the potential for sms spam.
>
> Bill K
>

So why does a phone number have to be listed in order for it to get a
telemarketing call? It's not as though it can't be dialed anyway and it's
not that much of a stretch for a telemarketing to figure out what set of
numbers are valid and just start calling them. It's not as if there's some
secret sequence where they can only obtain the number from some list. The
only way to relly stop it is to register with the Do Not Call list.

I'm not surprised there's a time limit on the Do Not Call list. I wouldn't
expect that to last forever since the same person doesn't always have that
for forever. When the time comes I'll reregister. I have no doubt it'll come
up in the news and on every phone related newsgroup when that time comes
near.

The Do Not Call list works so I think the telemarketing paranoia of the cell
directory is a moot point. I don't want my cell number in a directory just
out of principal. If I want someone to call my number I'll give it to them.

I'm not sure why this has to be so complicated? Why don't they just make
this directory a voluntary registration and the people who want their number
listed can register their number. Those who don't want their number listed
won't register. Why does it have to be an all or nothing ordeal?