NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

There is a loophool in those rules.. If you are a current customer of
the company in question, they have all right to telemarket you. That is
the one thing abou tthe Do not call list. If you are a Sprint PCS
customer, Then Sprint can still try to call you to get you to sign up
for LD or wutever.

--
Statements made by me are of my opinion and knowledge, and do not
express those by Verizon Wireless(R).
Any information I give is subject to change without notice, and may not
be completely accurate.


[email protected] (Tech Geek) wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
>
>
> [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
> > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> >
> > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> >
> > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> >
>
> Ready?
>
> Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227
>
> "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"
>
> Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
> machine etc..
>
> Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
> pre-recorded message
>
> Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
> from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
> is greater.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

[posted via phonescoop.com]

---

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

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:16:46 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:

>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.

The reason it is high is that is the way caller pays mobile works.
It's the same way in Europe and everywhere else that you have caller
pays. It has nothing to do with Bezeq and has everything to do with
the tariff that the mobile companies have agreed on for land line
callers. It costs me more to call an Israeli mobile number. A
regular number only costs me $.11/minute whereas a call to an Orange,
Cellcom or Pelephone number costs me $.25 per minute from the US.
It's the tariff that the mobile companies imposed on the land line
companies.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To send an email reply send to
GSMthemobilestandard ( yahoo.com

Dan, Thanks, but your tripping.

As for the law- what does that matter? If no one files a complaint no
law has been violated. Do you have any idea how much it cost a family
to file a claim in court? Did they record the phone call? (That's
illegal too unless you take the time to tell the person you are going
to.) What proof do they have that that person even works for that
outfit? What contact number can they call back on? Have you ever tried
calling a Tele-Marketer back on the phone number you got? No, because
it's usually unlisted or bared from incoming calls. The law is
meaningless when it be gotten around or or wavered. And yes, once the
sales man has already done business with you- tough ****!
Tele-marketing is a special interest business that has been getting
support from congress and the Federal courts for years. It was only
standard procedure when that idiot judge recently voted in their favor.


Jer <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> 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
>

[posted via phonescoop.com]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:52:28 -0000, [email protected] (William Bray)
wrote:

>Dan, Thanks, but your tripping.
>
>As for the law- what does that matter? If no one files a complaint no
>law has been violated. Do you have any idea how much it cost a family
>to file a claim in court? Did they record the phone call? (That's
>illegal too unless you take the time to tell the person you are going
>to.) What proof do they have that that person even works for that
>outfit? What contact number can they call back on? Have you ever tried
>calling a Tele-Marketer back on the phone number you got? No, because
>it's usually unlisted or bared from incoming calls. The law is
>meaningless when it be gotten around or or wavered. And yes, once the
>sales man has already done business with you- tough ****!
>Tele-marketing is a special interest business that has been getting
>support from congress and the Federal courts for years. It was only
>standard procedure when that idiot judge recently voted in their favor.

Not true. The claims would be handled by the FTC, so you don't have to
go to court to get redress on an individual level. I routinely file
complaints with NYS officials over our do-not-call list violations and
it's a totally online procedure.

"Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Tech Geek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > [email protected](Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer
generated
> > > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and that law works really well.
> > >
> > > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
> > >
> >
> > Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
> > don't know about the law.
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
>
> I get them all the time as well. I'll start writing their info down
instead
> of just hanging up. We report this to the FCC, right?

Yup. Online complaint forms, it's pretty convenient.


---
Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003

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

> Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
> grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
> order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
> of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
> telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
> as if anybody really cares.

This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
created.

Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.

....and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
of us during dinner. ;-)

Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
given their lists to the FTC.)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <[email protected]> posted
in alt.cellular.verizon:

>Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.

No, it's not. That's mob rule.

But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
lines to call.

"Al Klein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <[email protected]> posted
> in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
> >Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.
>
> No, it's not. That's mob rule.
>
> But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
> They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
> being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
> right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
> demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
> demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
> but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
> lines to call.


I said in this case, as opposed to segregation that was mentioned in the
ealier post. I agree, mob rule often results in bad choices, such as the
choice to sterlize mentally retarded people (used to be common in some
states and legal in Utah until the 70's).

Al Klein wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <[email protected]> posted
> in alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>
>>Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.
>
>
> No, it's not. That's mob rule.
>
> But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
> They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
> being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
> right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
> demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
> demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
> but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
> lines to call.


Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
commercial enterprises. I've never believed business HAD a
constitutional right to free speech.

--
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

Todd Allcock wrote:

> Jer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
>>Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
>>grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
>>order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
>>of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
>>telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
>>as if anybody really cares.
>
>
> This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
> gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
> the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
> FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
> FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
> to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
> the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
> created.
>
> Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
>
> ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
> organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
> with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
> of us during dinner. ;-)

Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.

>
> Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
> no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
> right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
> without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
> given their lists to the FTC.)


--
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

Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
some more.

The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
not just ours.

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:07:16 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>> Jer <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>>>Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
>>>grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
>>>order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
>>>of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
>>>telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
>>>as if anybody really cares.
>>
>>
>> This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
>> gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
>> the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
>> FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
>> FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
>> to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
>> the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
>> created.
>>
>> Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
>>
>> ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
>> organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
>> with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
>> of us during dinner. ;-)
>
>Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
>answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
>better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
>to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.
>
>>
>> Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
>> no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
>> right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
>> without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
>> given their lists to the FTC.)

Unfortunately, for those of us with cellphones already, that's not feasible.
It cost us money for incoming calls, and for those of us that have gone
wireless already, or work 3-11, (both those end up costing money to the
person GETTING the call), where's OUR rights?


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Here's what I plan to do about the situation. The next best thing to
> a sale for these guys is a quick hang-up. So instead I will just put
> the phone down and let them run through their schtick until they
> realize no one is there. Sometimes I will ask questions that sound
> like I'm interested, to keep them on the line as long as possible
> without making a sale. If the guy is a jerk, I'll screw with his head
> some more.
>
> The ONLY way we'll be able to kill these calls if the list is
> abolished is to make telemarketing as unprofitable as possible. That
> means making them sink more money into the dry holes they dig, and
> making the job so undesirable the companies will have to pay their
> employees more to do it. I recognize it sucks for the people doing
> the calling, but we already let the telemarketers know we don't want
> their calls by passing and signing on to the do not call registry. If
> they can't take the hint, that's going to have to be their problem,
> not just ours.
>
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:07:16 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Todd Allcock wrote:
> >
> >> Jer <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Listening to PBS in the car a while ago, they said Congress could
> >>>grant the authority to the FCC to invoke a national DNC list in short
> >>>order. I imagine if any politician wants a snow ball's chance in hell
> >>>of being re-electable, the FCC will get their wish, and the
> >>>telemarketers will just have to find something else to whine about -
> >>>as if anybody really cares.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
> >> gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
> >> the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
> >> FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
> >> FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
> >> to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
> >> the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
> >> created.
> >>
> >> Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
> >>
> >> ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
> >> organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
> >> with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
> >> of us during dinner. ;-)
> >
> >Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
> >answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
> >better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
> >to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.
> >
> >>
> >> Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
> >> no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
> >> right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
> >> without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
> >> given their lists to the FTC.)
>

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> posted in
alt.cellular.verizon:

>Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
>mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
>commercial enterprises.

Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
a lot easier. Assuming you answered a call with the CID blocked. I
don't unless I'm expecting the call.

Al Klein wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> posted in
> alt.cellular.verizon:
>
>
>>Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
>>mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
>>commercial enterprises.
>
>
> Actually, no. Free speech is something the government is prohibited
> from encroaching on. It's not granted to anyone. The government
> can't prevent someone from pitching a product. It CAN prohibit them
> from tying up a phone YOU pay for if you don;t want to hear the
> speech. But hanging up - without saying a word - is a lot faster and
> a lot easier. Assuming you answered a call with the CID blocked. I
> don't unless I'm expecting the call.

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. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.

If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
without prior explicit authorisation.

--
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

"Jer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Al Klein 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. Allow me to elaborate... I'm pro-individual,
> not pro-business. I don't believe a commercial enterprise should have
> a right to do anything. I believe business should sit there quietly
> with their mouth shut waiting patiently for me to want to do business
> with them. They only want one thing, my money. That's okay so long
> as I'm the only one that's involved in the decision as to where my
> money goes. I make sure that happens by ignoring virtually all
> marketing in any venue they choose. Adverts have been expunged from
> my entire life forever. No marketer ever provided me with information
> that I considered worthwhile. In fact, most either insulted me in
> some way, bored me, or their schtick was so stupid as to defy logic.
> So, telemarketers can call me all they want, I don't even answer the
> phone let alone talk to the rare few that manage to make my phone ring.
>
> If anyone's interested in how I found my nirvana, ask. But, you
> better ask here in the ng, my e-mail filters everything except the
> twelve blessed souls and seven businesses I allow to receive from
> without prior explicit authorisation.
>

open your eyes, if you have cable tv, then the marketeers have already
influenced you... why are you driving that particular car? why do you like
attractive women? what makes them attractive?

do you have a job? do wonder why? yes... business wants your money so you
can get paid...
marketing and advertising is a main part of business. without it, you will
be left with only a corner neighborhood shop.

how did you choose all your services from cell phone to label on your
clothes? advertising and marketing...
you are living in a consumer world. don't forget that.