Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 124
  1. #31
    dan allen
    Guest

    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!!




  2. #32
    dan allen
    Guest

    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]



  3. #33
    dan allen
    Guest

    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]



  4. #34
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    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.



  5. #35
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    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.



  6. #36
    Jer
    Guest

    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




  7. #37
    Jer
    Guest

    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




  8. #38
    Tech Geek
    Guest

    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]



  9. #39
    Tech Geek
    Guest

    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]



  10. #40
    Phill.
    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.



  11. #41
    Phill.
    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.



  12. #42
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson
    Guest

    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.




  13. #43
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson
    Guest

    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.




  14. #44
    Justin
    Guest

    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.






  15. #45
    Justin
    Guest

    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.






  • Similar Threads




  • Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast