Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Jeff
    Guest
    I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue here.
    It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
    portability.

    Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon, or
    are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?

    I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
    minutes I am going to go ballistic.

    Later

    Jeff


    http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4795543.html

    Last update: May 25, 2004 at 8:38 PM
    Los Angeles Times: Directory of private cell-phone numbers will irk millions
    May 26, 2004LATIMES0526
    From an editorial in the Los Angeles Times:

    There's wonderful news on the cell-phone front for telemarketers, spammers,
    used-car salesmen and real estate agents.

    Within months, an association of cellular and Internet communicators will be
    selling a nationwide directory of private cell-phone numbers. Super news for
    those feeling slighted and unrecognized in an impersonal world because they
    weren't receiving their fair share of unsolicited telephone calls. Now you
    can have such wireless encounters in meetings, movies, cars, restaurants,
    bed.

    Also, people need waste no more time deciding who gets cell access to them
    and their monthly minutes. Everyone on the planet with 99 cents will be able
    to find you anytime, anywhere. And you can pay for it.

    Wait one darned message unit!

    This is thoroughly dumb for consumers. Great for sellers of mass access, who
    could gain an estimated $3 billion in fees and sold minutes by 2009. Also
    great for telemarketers, who fear that millions more customers will go
    totally wireless by canceling listed home phones.

    But double-list this cell directory idea under S for stupid and U for
    unnecessary. Praise be to Verizon Wireless, which vows not to dump its 39
    million numbers into the database. That leaves 121 million of us.

    This is an unintended consequence of allowing cell customers to transfer old
    numbers to new service providers. When 30 million customers changed numbers
    annually, there was no point to compiling a list.

    Directory boosters, some no doubt with unlisted home phones, claim that
    users will be able to opt in or out of a cell directory. Sounds super.

    True, anyone can still use the federal Do Not Call Registry --
    www.donotcall.gov -- which applies to "most telemarketers."

    Key word here: most. Have you stopped getting unwanted e-mails or phone
    calls? Would you like dozens of unsolicited, untraceable text messages or
    pictures a day on your cell? Why pay next year for something you don't have
    today and still don't want?

    This is a privacy matter. The IRS could make millions selling information on
    family incomes. It can't legally. You want to release your income, fine. You
    needn't opt into privacy; it's there automatically, and free.

    Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., seeks hearings on a law to bar listing or
    nonlisting fees and force directories to get permission for each number. If
    that's too expensive, good.

    But publishing private info is also a control issue.

    We're unable in modern America to opt out of or into so many things --
    traffic jams, smog, pay raises, rent increases, rude passersby, tasteless
    ads for beer and enhancements. We have few quiet refuges left. Two of them
    are a private cell where we control the number and a shower where we control
    the water.

    Now, half of that's threatened.





    See More: Cell Phone Directory




  2. #2
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory


    "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]_s01...
    > I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue here.
    > It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
    > portability.
    >
    > Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon, or
    > are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?


    While that editorial makes Verizon sound like angels, other articles have
    talked about them 'exploring' a fee for not listing a number. Why do
    something for free whenthey can make money at it.

    >
    > I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up

    MY
    > minutes I am going to go ballistic.
    >


    Telemarketers are prohibited by regulation from contacting cell phones. I
    haven't seen anything that rescinds this.





  3. #3
    Jeff
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]_s01...
    > > I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue

    here.
    > > It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
    > > portability.
    > >
    > > Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon,

    or
    > > are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?

    >
    > While that editorial makes Verizon sound like angels, other articles have
    > talked about them 'exploring' a fee for not listing a number. Why do
    > something for free whenthey can make money at it.
    >
    > >
    > > I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use

    up
    > MY
    > > minutes I am going to go ballistic.
    > >

    >
    > Telemarketers are prohibited by regulation from contacting cell phones. I
    > haven't seen anything that rescinds this.


    What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
    previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
    many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
    becomes an attractive marketing technique.

    Jeff





  4. #4
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

    > What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
    > previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
    > many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
    > becomes an attractive marketing technique.


    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml

    47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
    law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
    to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
    calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
    incident if you receive such calls.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003



  5. #5
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory


    "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
    > > previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
    > > many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
    > > becomes an attractive marketing technique.

    >
    > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml
    >
    > 47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
    > law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
    > to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
    > calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
    > incident if you receive such calls.
    >
    > --


    Thanks, Steve- I couldn't remember which one it was.

    BTW- a hand dialed telemarketing call is allowed under the law.





  6. #6
    John S.
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    >I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
    >minutes I am going to go ballistic.


    Keep in mind that elemarketers typically will auto-generate the numbers to
    call. The machines they use generate the numbers sequentially and when the
    number is dialed the machines can tell if someone answers and switches the call
    to an inactive "agent".

    No one has to sell these folks numbers, Machines I have seen can dial up to
    10,000 numbers an hour.

    --
    John S.
    e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net



  7. #7
    RÝbert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected]pamfree (John S.) wrote:

    > >I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
    > >minutes I am going to go ballistic.

    >
    > Keep in mind that elemarketers typically will auto-generate the numbers to
    > call. The machines they use generate the numbers sequentially and when the
    > number is dialed the machines can tell if someone answers and switches the
    > call
    > to an inactive "agent".
    >
    > No one has to sell these folks numbers, Machines I have seen can dial up to
    > 10,000 numbers an hour.


    and likely improving all the time. War dialers they used to be called,
    as hackers would dial numbers to find which had modems on them. Set it
    to run at bedtime, and have a long list of targets by the next morning.

    Currently also used to identify FAX machines to SPAM.



  8. #8
    Ray
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    Jeff wrote:

    > "Scott Stephenson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]_s01...
    >>
    >>>I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue

    >
    > here.
    >
    >>>It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
    >>>portability.


    The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
    the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
    anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
    better off without the law.

    Actually, for the most part, the country is better off when congress is
    in recess! They can't pass worthless laws and they can't spend money.




  9. #9
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    In article <[email protected]_s51>,
    Ray <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
    > the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
    > anything to the offenders.


    Most of the spam that gets through Earthlink and my filters anymore
    comes from Russia and Italy.



  10. #10
    Jeff
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory


    "Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
    > > previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
    > > many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
    > > becomes an attractive marketing technique.

    >
    > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml
    >
    > 47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
    > law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
    > to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
    > calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
    > incident if you receive such calls.
    >
    > --
    > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP:

    0xE3AE35ED
    > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /

    [email protected]
    > Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    > "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out

    and buy
    > slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows

    98/2000/2003

    This seems to only apply to automatically dialed calls. I wonder if the
    telemarketers will use humans to call.

    Thanks for the information, it is one more arrow for my quiver when these
    idiots start to call.

    Jeff





  11. #11
    z66
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory


    > The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
    > the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
    > anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
    > better off without the law.
    >
    > Actually, for the most part, the country is better off when congress is
    > in recess! They can't pass worthless laws and they can't spend money.
    >



    But the government seems more than willing to pass laws that will make them
    the strong arm of the RIAA. Wish I could have about $1,000,000,000 in
    assets so I could get the goverment to be my play thing.






  12. #12
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Cell Phone Directory

    Ray <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
    > the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
    > anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
    > better off without the law.


    CAN-SPAM is a horrible, badly-written law. The TCPA actually works.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
    Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
    "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
    slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003



  • Similar Threads