NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

[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

---

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

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

No way in heck. I was in the lower 48 states of the US and got a call from a
telemarketer while I was roaming on a ship on a lake. I was billed .69
(Sixty Nine Cents a minute!) for a frigging incoming call from a
telemarketer while I was on vacation!

Your numbers are probably for land line to land line, yet this was in a
message about telemarketers calling a cellphone! Yes it's illegal to call
someone on a cellphone, but if you are on vacation what the heck are you
gonna do? I was 2847 miles from home and the verizon office I deal with.,

"Peter Pan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> No way in heck. I was in the lower 48 states of the US and got a call from a
> telemarketer while I was roaming on a ship on a lake. I was billed .69
> (Sixty Nine Cents a minute!) for a frigging incoming call from a
> telemarketer while I was on vacation!
>
> Your numbers are probably for land line to land line, yet this was in a
> message about telemarketers calling a cellphone!

Those two cents are for huge plans when one uses them fully. Something
like $100 for 5000 minutes.

> Yes it's illegal to call
> someone on a cellphone, but if you are on vacation what the heck are you
> gonna do? I was 2847 miles from home and the verizon office I deal with.,

Well here it is not illegal to telemarket to cell phones and if one
is in, say, Spain it is about 50 cents a minute to receive calls.

Osmo

In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]> 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.
>[...]

The problem, jer, as much as I hate to admit it, is that I think the
other side has a point. The problem is not that the government cannot
regulate telephone calls. They can. The problem is that they are
regulating the content of telephone calls. Do you understand what I'm
saying?

Let's take an example: Suppose the do-not-call list applied to
Democrats instead of telemarketers. Wouldn't you agree that the
government placing a blanket ban on Democrats making calls would be
illegal? What if they put a blanket ban on environmentalists? Or black
people? Or people with disabilities? The problem is that when the
government regulates telecommunications, it seems to me they must do it in
such a way that is content neutral to stay within the boundaries of the
First Amendment.

Here's another way they could accomplish the same end: Require all
commercial telemarketing vendors to provide information in their Caller ID
stream which identifies them as commercial vendors. What's the
difference? The difference is the government in no way stops the vendor
from making his calls. The government is not banning content. It allows
the consumer to decide whether or not to pick up the phone. Or to install
his own blocking software. All telemarketing agencies would be required
to have a commercial soliciation license which identifies them as
businesses which sell products over the telephone. Additionally, PACs,
charities and non-profits which request donations over the phone would
also be required to have a license and a Caller ID solicitation code. Do
you see why this might be a better way to handle the problem? The various
groups could petition the FCC for the right mix of codes so that a
household can distinguish political, charitable and commercial calls
effectively for itself. For some reason, this feels so much more American
than the no-call list which up until recently I vigorously supported.

I think it is essential that we properly balance the rights of
citizens to say what they want, even over the telephone, with the rights
of citizens not to be forced to listen. I think our hatred of business
calls is not nearly as important as our Bill of Rights. And the rights it
guarantees to all of our citizens.

RDT




--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

What I don't quite understand about this "regulation of content" issue
is this: The do-not-call list does not say that making calls with
certain content is an illegal act; it says that people may express their
desire not to receive calls with certain content, and the government will
enforce that desire. Sort of like getting a restraining order against
someone to keep them away from you, and the state will enforce that order.
It's not like harassing phone calls, which are crimes in and of themselves.

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
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.
> >[...]
>
> The problem, jer, as much as I hate to admit it, is that I think the
> other side has a point. The problem is not that the government cannot
> regulate telephone calls. They can. The problem is that they are
> regulating the content of telephone calls. Do you understand what I'm
> saying?
>
> Let's take an example: Suppose the do-not-call list applied to
> Democrats instead of telemarketers. Wouldn't you agree that the
> government placing a blanket ban on Democrats making calls would be
> illegal? What if they put a blanket ban on environmentalists? Or black
> people? Or people with disabilities? The problem is that when the
> government regulates telecommunications, it seems to me they must do it in
> such a way that is content neutral to stay within the boundaries of the
> First Amendment.

Commercial speech does not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as
private speech.

In article <[email protected]>,
CharlesH <[email protected]> wrote:
>What I don't quite understand about this "regulation of content" issue
>is this: The do-not-call list does not say that making calls with
>certain content is an illegal act; it says that people may express their
>desire not to receive calls with certain content, and the government will
>enforce that desire.

The government has defined what legal content will be regulated.
That is a constitutional no-no. If the content were illegal, then
certainly the government could regulate it without an issue. Selling
legal products to people is not a crime therefore the government has no
basis for disallowing it. What you're forgetting is that speech is a two
way street. You are thinking as a consumer ("I don't want to receive
sales calls"), but you are forgetting that the vendor has free speech and
freedom of association as well. Therefore, the system has to be revisited
to ensure that it is constitutionally sound.

>Sort of like getting a restraining order against
>someone to keep them away from you, and the state will enforce that order.
>It's not like harassing phone calls, which are crimes in and of themselves.

Nice try, no cigar. Restraining orders are granted on a case by case
basis and require a judge to agree with you that the person you are
wanting to have restrained poses some sort of threat to you. The
government cannot arbitrarily issue restraining orders just because you
don't like salesmen.

The government may regulate time, manner and place of free speech,
but they cannot ban it based solely on its content (unless it's found to
be obscene). The fact that citizens may want them to ban free speech and
are willing to sign a list telling them to do so does not nullify the
Constitution. The government does all kinds of unConstitutional things
every day including the Patriot Act and the detention of so-called
terrorists at Guantanamo without benefit of the full protections of US
law. That doesn't mean we bend over and smile with glee when they stick
their dicks up our asses. If I denied telemarketers' free speech, then I
would be giving the government the ability to decide speech content for
me because they would enforce it against those groups which were
politically unpopular and allow politically popular groups to claim they
were not really telemarketers.

Do you see yet why this is a bad idea?

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

In article <[email protected]>,
[ a m z ] <[email protected]> wrote:
>Commercial speech does not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as
>private speech.

Actually, that is becoming less and less true. At one time,
commercial speech was not considered covered by the First Amendment.
Now, due to cases which have allowed the Discovery Channel, for example,
to maintain little boxes with fliers on the street despite the fact the
city of Cincinnati found them ugly. I think that should show why the
judge's decision in light of court precedent is both reasonable and
prudent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/17.html#2

RDT


--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

You can't be serious..... I don't think I've ever seen a more wildly
incorrect analysis of the law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....!

The "do not call" list ALLOWS each person to decide for him/herself to
either receive or not receive these overwhelmingly unwanted phone calls. The
vendor has NO right of "free speech" or any other to impose on people who
have publicly stated they don't want to hear from them....NO right at
all....!

FER

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]>
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.
| >[...]
|
| The problem, jer, as much as I hate to admit it, is that I think the
| other side has a point. The problem is not that the government cannot
| regulate telephone calls. They can. The problem is that they are
| regulating the content of telephone calls. Do you understand what I'm
| saying?
|
| Let's take an example: Suppose the do-not-call list applied to
| Democrats instead of telemarketers. Wouldn't you agree that the
| government placing a blanket ban on Democrats making calls would be
| illegal? What if they put a blanket ban on environmentalists? Or black
| people? Or people with disabilities? The problem is that when the
| government regulates telecommunications, it seems to me they must do it in
| such a way that is content neutral to stay within the boundaries of the
| First Amendment.
|
| Here's another way they could accomplish the same end: Require all
| commercial telemarketing vendors to provide information in their Caller ID
| stream which identifies them as commercial vendors. What's the
| difference? The difference is the government in no way stops the vendor
| from making his calls. The government is not banning content. It allows
| the consumer to decide whether or not to pick up the phone. Or to install
| his own blocking software. All telemarketing agencies would be required
| to have a commercial soliciation license which identifies them as
| businesses which sell products over the telephone. Additionally, PACs,
| charities and non-profits which request donations over the phone would
| also be required to have a license and a Caller ID solicitation code. Do
| you see why this might be a better way to handle the problem? The various
| groups could petition the FCC for the right mix of codes so that a
| household can distinguish political, charitable and commercial calls
| effectively for itself. For some reason, this feels so much more American
| than the no-call list which up until recently I vigorously supported.
|
| I think it is essential that we properly balance the rights of
| citizens to say what they want, even over the telephone, with the rights
| of citizens not to be forced to listen. I think our hatred of business
| calls is not nearly as important as our Bill of Rights. And the rights it
| guarantees to all of our citizens.
|
| RDT
|
|
|
|
| --
| "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
| inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
| --- Sir Winston Churchill
|

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

| The government does all kinds of unConstitutional things
| every day including the Patriot Act and the detention of so-called
| terrorists at Guantanamo without benefit of the full protections of US
| law.

Absolute rubbish - the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional nor is the
detention of terrorists, not one of whom can lay any legitimate claim to the
"full protection" of US law since they aren't US citizens....!

|That doesn't mean we bend over and smile with glee when they stick
| their dicks up our asses. If I denied telemarketers' free speech, then I
| would be giving the government the ability to decide speech content for
| me because they would enforce it against those groups which were
| politically unpopular and allow politically popular groups to claim they
| were not really telemarketers.

Pure, unadulterated, impossible to validate bull****.......telemarketers
have NO right to impose on anyone hiding behind the First Amendment....which
isn't about selling products, but rather about protected political
speech.....!

| Do you see yet why this is a bad idea?

What I see is a left wing idealogue who hasn't a clue as to what he's
talking about.....

PC

RDT wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Jer <[email protected]> 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.
>>[...]
>
>
> The problem, jer, as much as I hate to admit it, is that I think the
> other side has a point. The problem is not that the government cannot
> regulate telephone calls. They can. The problem is that they are
> regulating the content of telephone calls. Do you understand what I'm
> saying?

Yup, I hear ya. But I'm not supporting the government to regulate
telephone calls based on content, I'm supporting the government to help
ME regulate telephone calls based on content, predicated on my
declaration of what I don't want. This is what I thought the DNC was
all about. If there were additional inclusions for what has been
exempted, I'd declare that also. Personally, I don't want to hear from
anyone but friends and family, unless I've previously granted an
exception by having an active and ongoing business relationship. And
the same goes for my inbox.

Furthermore, I don't believe any business has any free speech rights
rooted in our Constitution. I believe the intent of our Constitution's
free speech was for private individuals, not business. Yes, I know this
puts me at odds with the Supreme Court, but that's just how I roll. I
don't just accept something simply because it's popular to do so, or
because someone with authority says so - I require justification, for
whatever reasons I deem necessary at the time I make my decision as to
what I consider appropriate and acceptable, not them. As I recall, this
position puts me at odds with >95% of American society, and is the
primary reason I ignore that same >95%, which is getting easier to do
every day.

[....]

--
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

""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [ a m z ] wrote:
> >Commercial speech does not enjoy the same First Amendment protections as
> >private speech.
>
> Actually, that is becoming less and less true. At one time,
> commercial speech was not considered covered by the First Amendment.
> Now, due to cases which have allowed the Discovery Channel, for example,
> to maintain little boxes with fliers on the street despite the fact the
> city of Cincinnati found them ugly. I think that should show why the
> judge's decision in light of court precedent is both reasonable and
> prudent.
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt01/17.html#2
>
> RDT

You are technically correct that it is becoming less true, but it still can
be regulated. From your own citation:

"...the Court's treatment of ''commercial speech'' has undergone a
transformation, from total nonprotection under the First Amendment to
qualified protection."

Note that it says QUALIFIED protection. It will never be equal.

For example, private people can stand on a street corner spouting lies and
it is protected speech. People representing a commercial enterprise cannot
do the same thing.

Personally, I think the proper system would be to:

1. Ban ALL automated calls (e.g. "Please hold for an important
message...").

2. Permit "informational" political and research calls provided they do not
ask for money.

3. Ban both commercial and charity solicitations by phone if someone is on
a federal DNC list.

What people have to bear in mind is that the DNC rules PERMIT calls if a
person was a customer within the last 18 months or if they asked for info
within the last 3.

In article <[email protected]>,
[ a m z ] <[email protected]> wrote:
>For example, private people can stand on a street corner spouting lies and
>it is protected speech. People representing a commercial enterprise cannot
>do the same thing.

The government has the right to regulate commerce. That is true.
The key word here is regulate. We know, for example, the Supreme Court is
very unlikely to allow the government to censor any publication -- known
in law as "prior restraint". The no call list actually allows the
government to censor calls which they have deemed to be commercial in
nature. Even if the law applies only to those consumers who have signed
up for it, I think the court should still look very cautiously at a
government attempt to prevent calls getting to us.

I know everyone here is fixated on the issue of telemarketers. But
then, the government must decide which calls are commercial and which are
not and then apply prior restraint to those calls which they deem
commercial. Perhaps Democratic pollsters which might embarrass President
Bush or Republican polllsters who might embarrass President Clark or
President Dean in the future are labelled as commercial by the FCC. The
court would get involved, but the Administration would claim that they
interpreted the rules in a particular way which would allow them to block
calls from certain pollsters. We really do need to think more than a few
seconds ahead about the Constitutional implications here. We know that
the government will do a power grab whenever it can and the best way to do
a power grab is to make people think they're voting for something which
benefits them. For example, Social Security or Medicare. When, in fact,
the government has just expropriated huge amounts of our money and our
freedom. The government doesn't have our best interests at heart. The
government is controlled by special interests, lobbying groups and big
corporations. And you can bet that if Bush supports this, there is more
to it than meets the eye. I'd much rather make the decision for myself
than allow the government to decide for me which calls I should not have
to take. Caller ID with information codes about the calling party is the
way to go.

RDT
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
--- Sir Winston Churchill

"Proconsul" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<k0nfb.13218$k74.3120@lakeread05>...
> ""RDT"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> | The government does all kinds of unConstitutional things
> | every day including the Patriot Act and the detention of so-called
> | terrorists at Guantanamo without benefit of the full protections of US
> | law.
>
> Absolute rubbish - the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional nor is the
> detention of terrorists, not one of whom can lay any legitimate claim to the
> "full protection" of US law since they aren't US citizens....!

Good point- I think that same argument was used a lot in support of WWII
Japanese internment. Oh, how history has smiled on THAT!

(Anybody notice we only lock up the folks that don't look like us? Nobody
discussed internment of Germans during WWII! I don't think any "Michigan
Milita" good ol' boys are sweating it out at Guantanamo either. Onlt them
turban-wearin' "potential threats" need apply!)

> |That doesn't mean we bend over and smile with glee when they stick
> | their dicks up our asses. If I denied telemarketers' free speech, then I
> | would be giving the government the ability to decide speech content for
> | me because they would enforce it against those groups which were
> | politically unpopular and allow politically popular groups to claim they
> | were not really telemarketers.
>
> Pure, unadulterated, impossible to validate bull****.......telemarketers
> have NO right to impose on anyone hiding behind the First Amendment....which
> isn't about selling products, but rather about protected political
> speech.....!

Actualy commercial speech IS protected. This is a democracy.
> | Do you see yet why this is a bad idea?
>
> What I see is a left wing idealogue who hasn't a clue as to what he's
> talking about.....

Somebody tell me when the left and right switched sides? I grew up in
the 70's when the right supported law enforcement, then they suddenly
became despised "jack-booted thugs". The Republicans of my youth
were pro-democracy and anti-government interference in our lives.
they want Government to regulate free-market advertising like
telemarketing and control who and how I can f**k in my own bedroom.

To quote Bill Maher- "I'd probably be a Rebublican, if only THEY would
be, too!"

This is exactly a free speech issue- either ban all unsolicited calls or
none. Let's see if Congress has the balls to ban political campaigning
via telephone.

I'll wager they don't.

In article <[email protected]>,
Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>(Anybody notice we only lock up the folks that don't look like us? Nobody
>discussed internment of Germans during WWII!

I am of German descent, and remember my mother telling me that people
of German ancestry were awfully quiet during WWII on matters concerning
their heritage. Things like speaking German in public, German social clubs,
German cultural events. But at least they had a chance to blend into
the background, unlike people of Japanese descent.