John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 10 Dec 2004
> 17:31:56 -0800, Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 09:53:06 -0800, "Quick"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:53:22 -0800, "Quick"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I kind of doubt it too "If you're ever in Frankfurt please give
>>>>> our car wash a try.". And for foreign telemarketers calling
>>>>> foreign cell phones my understand is much of Europe is caller
>>>>> pays.
>>>>
>>>> And what makes you think that domestic operations might not take
>>>> advantage of foreign cheaper labour costs to market US products?
>>>
>>> Ahhh, now we're back to US "domestic operations" which would
>>> fall under the do not call penalties.

>>
>> But what makes you think that the US has any clout over foreign
>> jurisdictions?

>
> It does when there's a "domestic operation."


Exactly. When the car dealer down the street has their telemarketer
in India call you I think the tie-in to the local operation would be pretty
easy.

-Quick





See More: Cell Phone - The National Do Not Call Registry - **Information Alert**