FCC Proposes Fining AT&T Over DNC Violation 392
Iphtashu Fitz writes "The FCC has just announced a proposed $780,000 fine against AT&T for violating the recently enacted Do Not Call telemarketing rules. The FCC charges that AT&T marketers called 29 consumers on 78 different occasions after those consumers had signed up on the Do Not Call list. The FCC has posted a press release (pdf) to this effect on their web site."
Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:4, Interesting)
On a practical note, this way when the telemarketers call, we can know that we're dealing with a felon, and proceed accordingly.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Informative)
For those who don't get it: technically speaking, calling someone on the DNC list isn't a felony, it's a civil infraction.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:5, Insightful)
To put that into perspective - OJ was found "Not Guilty" in a criminal court, because it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. The civil court proceedings, however, found him guilty "By a preponderance of evidence". So, by one standard he's not guilty, by another he is guilty. At the end of the day, he killed 'em, but the case wasn't good enough to prosecute criminally.
For our purposes of the DNC list, I would think that this will make nailing the slime who try to weasel through the loopholes easier...we don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they're a weasel, we just have to show through a preponderance of evidence that they are a small, furry mammal of the Mustelid family, behaving in a weasel-like way.
The preceeding is noted as being gratuitously insulting to weasels, for which I apologize.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Informative)
Courts find people liable for things they proved they didn't do all the time (see the Chaplin paternity case). It really shouldn't be that way, but because it is sometimes that can work to your advantage.
"Ok, you proved you didn't do it, but we think you're scum anyway. Pay up."
And who doesn't think telemarketers are scum? Hell, I've known some telemarketers who knew they were scum, but di
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:2)
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:2, Funny)
preponderance of evidence (Score:2)
Or, another way to look at it was simply that, after a number of strange occurances including moving the case from the area where it happened to an area where there was tremendous racial support for OJ, there was a bad jury verdict, and that just about any 12 reasonable people would have indeed found him guilty in criminal court.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:4, Insightful)
Sneaky bastards, telemarketers are.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:2, Insightful)
Please tell me how thats a deterrent to something like AT&T?
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, they most likely did not get $780,000 in returns from those calls. A part of the business that is bleeding money, with no real anticipated return is likely to be cut off.
Re:Good - let's get this tested right away (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, that is in the FIRST month of the DNC being enforced. I'm sure if AT&T wants to continue to pay $780,000 PER MONTH that they will continue their behavior. At nearly $10 Million / year, I do believe that's a deterrent. The LD market isn't that great anymore.
Re:Not the same DNC (Score:2)
Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody knows AT&T, and as far as I'm concerned they should pay the maximum penalty plus an idiot tax for doing precisely what they've been told not to do. But I wish I could find a way to get in contact with the many people who would probably come see the plays that my theater troupe puts on if they only knew it existed.
I'm not trying to claim that I'm going to try telemarketing for that; I wouldn't even if it would be cost-effective. I'm not even proposing that telemarketing should be allowed at all. It's an obvious violation of privacy, as well as being obnoxious, and if obnoxious is all you've got, give up. I'm just challenging one of your assumptions, that "I'll come to you to find out what you have to offer."
For myself, I'll keep trying the old-fashioned way: putting on good theater and hoping that eventually positive word of mouth will bring people out to see it, and being grateful that I'm not expecting to make a living off of it.
(And passing up the crass opportunity to get myself modded down by putting the URL for my theater group on Slashdot. Not that I won't get modded down anyway for explaining, if not excusing, some telemarketers.)
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2, Interesting)
However, I am mostly attacking the ideologies of telemarketing/spamming.
Telemarketing is a hindrance to the consumer - it requires the user to pay for the telephone use - and it invades upon their personal time - at the company's discretion.
Spam is but little better - this utilizes the consumer's bandwidth - and on dial-ups - takes forever! (Consequently their time as well.)
Mass mailing? - I can tolerate. Mass mailing does not drastically affect a c
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
The cost to the user is so low, in time and money, as to not be worth considering. It is just like the cost that it takes to sort out junk mail from real mail, and to throw that junk mail away -- a burden that the Supreme Court has found recipients are stuck having to bear, and which you yourself don't have a problem with.
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:3, Insightful)
As for advertising, word-of-mouth has always been the most effective and strongest form of advertising, and will continue to be for the forseeable long-term future. Nothing gets customers like referrals. There are other avenues for small businesses to get the word out. Interrupting Joe Six-pack's dinner with an unsolicited phone call is not a particularly smart one, even without a DNC list.
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly word-of-mouth is most effective, but just as clearly if I weren't subsidizing this business, we'd never support ourselves long enough for word-of-mouth to function.
There are other techniques, and it is unfortunate that some of those that should be available to me simply aren't effective right where I am. The local newspaper doesn't seem to ha
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
Sorry, but URLs posted in comments rarely get slashdotted. Besides, nobody is going to cut and paste that. Most readers are too lazy. Try this [rudemechanicals.com] instead. Maybe you'll get more click-throughs. ;-)
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
His theater is:
The Rude Mechanicals
http://www.rudemechanicals.com/
(check his
And I agree-- I have a small business and advertising is very difficult and costly-- you'd think a searchable site that lists businesses, locations, what they do, and consumer reviews would be out there-- Hmmm, maybe I just thought of something to do with my domains...
I can suggest a way (Score:5, Funny)
Bulk email marketing.
TURN YOUR PC INTO A CASH MACHINE!
....
E-Mail turns your computer into a Money Machine by giving you FREE, immediate access to over 400 Million People. Don't you think some of these people would be interested in your products or Services?
MUCH FASTER: With bulk E-mail you get responses back in 1 to 4 days instead of waiting weeks or months! You can begin filling orders the same day you send E-mail. FREE ADVERTISING WORTH MILLIONS: It costs millions of dollars to mail.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL ADDRESS. TO ORDER, READ BELOW:
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
http://www.illwillpress.com/cardculttoon.html
(needs flash)
its an interesting idea.
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:4, Interesting)
Which brings up an interesting question... Would you accept a "free" phone service that could not be added to the DNC? I'm sure this is a market just waiting to happen.
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
That is interesting. But I think that the mechanics of making a phone call or answering it are a lot different from television, and you'd need a different approach. If telemarketers were free to call you whenever, and you with no recourse, your phone will turn into an Inbox with no spam filter. Maybe if you were required to periodical
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
As long as it has caller ID, or I can use an answering machine. What compels people to answer phones immediately, even when they have caller ID? If you're eating, just ignore the damn thing.
Re:Protect Personal Privacy! (Score:2)
Consent is part of it, but most people seem to find that there's some sort of trade-off. Most people accept the fact that their snail mail is subsidized by the bulk mailers, and are willing to sort through junk mail because there's relatively little of it. I get more junk mail than real mail every day, but it's not swamped like spam. And it's not as irritating as a phone call because the phone call, unlike spam and junk mai
This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, as we all know, the DNC is hotly contested in court as possible free speech violations, among other things. I don't think the courts really care about the small telemarketer and their rights, but someone with the size, lobbying ability, and lawyer teams that AT&T has really could put up a good fight to the law.
It's a nice precedent to see AT&T fined for this, but I hope it doesn't backfire.
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, do you mean this is a free speech violation? Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen. I also have the right to freedom from your speech.
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you did? The FTC set up the national Do No Call Registry. This article is about the FCC and has nothing to do with the national registry, regardless of what the
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, as we all know, the DNC is hotly contested in court as possible free speech violations, among other things.
I could never understand why it's being pushed as a free speech violation so much. If I stood outside someone's house every night, shouting my own personal philosophies, I could easily be arrested for disturbing the peace. If that person sound-proofed their windows, I couldn't appeal to some higher authority about my freedom of speech being violated. Telemarketers, however, are f
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2, Interesting)
Who has the right to 'steal' from me? Don't we have a law against the theft of money? Or, are we all too lazy to itemize our phone bills and realize that yes - we paid a few pennies here and there because of some Telemarketer... If we have a DNC list - and someone breaks that list - I believe the FCC, in the best interest of citizens abroad, should fine that company.
Yes - I believe in Freedom of Speech - but, I also believe that I have the freedom to be left alone and not terrorized by com
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2, Interesting)
The FCC said that commercial calls were more likely to be fraudulent. There are plenty of charity scams, most politicians are full of shit, and there are a lot of "push polls". Selectively restricting is the problem.
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
I wonder, if the FCC provided the option to put yourself on the DNC for only "commerical" calls but also provided the option to add yourself for the rest of the calls:
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
What right does another have to use something I pay for to send me messages I do not want?
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
What you really mean must be, 'what right does another have to send me messages I do not want?'
And this depends. Do they know you don't want them, or would they have to assume that despite having no evidence? If they know -- because you've told them not to call, or you've put up proper notice such as joining the DNC list, then I think you might have a point. But telemarketers aren't psychic, so it is not reasonable to
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
They don't care if you want them to call you or not. If they did care they would not be fighting the list that allows them to know who doesn't want their calls!
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:3, Interesting)
1: I work nights
2: I am unable to turn my phone ringer off because of kids in school and/or other emergencies.
3: The ringing of the phone costs me sleep and causes me to be less well rested.
Why should I have to accept that other companies have the right to contact me during my sleep cycle?
They are free to use the postal service if they feel the need to contact me.
As to the lack of coordination between telemarketers, the DNC list would provide that. But they don't want the DNC list, th
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
Free Speech (Score:5, Informative)
Can you imagine a whole new class of "door-to-door" salesmen who knocked on your door, entered your house uninvited, demanded the use of your possessions, showed their product and then claimed that you had no right to stop them because it would violate their right of free speech?
The TCPA has been around for over 10 years now and has been upheld to be constitutional, but that doesn't prevent lawyers from trying the same old arguments again and again. They include: Destination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, (9th Cir. 1995), and Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161. See also Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1162 (S.D. Indiana 1997). Linder v. Thrifty Oil negates the popular "minimal harm" argument.
Because cert to the US Supreme Court was denied in the 9th Circuit, it means that the operating law is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which unanimously upheld the TCPA as constitutional. The 9th Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits so this ruling holds a lot of weight. It covers California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition, federal district courts in three circuits have also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA.
An 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. Limbaugh's bogus ruling was reversed, as we predicted, by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21, 2003. (it is important for you all to understand the differences between a ruling being reversed, remanded, or otherwise directed. Reversed pretty much means that something was in such gross error, it should have never existed.)
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/
More infor can be found at junkfax.org
What does Rush Limbaugh have to do with it? (Score:2)
That the judge is Rush Limbaugh's Uncle is a fact [1] irrelavent to the topic. He ruled based on what he thought was right. Linking something he does to being related to someone else is flamebait unless you intend to accuse him of some sort of fraud. You undercut your argument by making most of your point stand on being related to someone controversial.
[1]I'm assumeing your claim of relation is correct.
Re:This could be wonderful, but it could backfire (Score:2)
Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:5, Insightful)
This is based on the rules that have long been in place that you can request that a company put you on their internal do not call list.
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:2)
Their latest goal is to say "Oh, do you want to be off our list?"
Which simply means that they remove your row from the database. Next time they get new numbers, you are back on the list. They aren't breaking any laws, in theory, because the "Do not call" list isn't mentioned.
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:3, Insightful)
I would bet that we could find many thousands of people who have been repeatedly harrassed by them. At that rate, suddenly we're talking about a couple hundred dollars per person harrassed, which is almost certainly more than made up for by the number of suckers... err... customers they ga
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:4, Insightful)
The Telco act of 1996 required that telemarketers maintain a Do-Not-Call list of their own. If a person was called and asked to be added to the list, the telemarketer had to add the person to that list and amek sure said person was never called again.
The Federal Do-Not-Call list is an extension of that. It has a list of people who are on everyone's Do-Not-Call list.
Given the Federal Do-Not-Call list has only been active for a month and the FCC has been investigating AT&T for 'several months' (read the PDF), that would imply that AT&T is violating the first instance of the Do-Not-Call list.
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:2)
Yeah. AT&T has never honored that request. I got at least a call a week from them for several years at an old address, and demanded each time to be taken off the list. I will never do business with any branch of AT&T. May they go bankrupt.
Re:Not the "Do Not Call" list (Score:2)
Good. You must enforce it for it to work (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say AT&T is testing their limits, seeing what they can get away with. If the FCC lets them go on this one, I suspect the DNC list will become pretty useless.
Excellent (Score:2, Interesting)
Why punish AT&T (Score:5, Funny)
Surely the consumers had opted-in with a business partner.
Re:Why punish AT&T (Score:2)
Instead, let's have CarrotTop [haypenny.com] drawn & quartered...
Re:Why punish AT&T (Score:2)
I hope they're real, because Richard/Robert is a master of correspondence.
AT&T? (Score:2, Interesting)
Before you say this is a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
Out of 300 who complained (probably slightly less, since some may have complained multiple times), 29 of them were accepted, or about 1 in 10.
So one could assume that for every violation that was reported, investigated, and verified, about 1000 went unpunished.
So the actual penalty comes out to about $10 per actual violation, reported or not.
Re:Before you say this is a lot (Score:2)
It sound depressing, but consider the fact that only a small fraction of telemarketing calls are successful. Even if only 1 in 1,000 violations leads to a fine, that one $10,000 fine could still eat up the profits made by a few dozen "payoff" calls amoung the 1,000. I'd also think the success rate would be lower than usual on calls to numbers on the DNC list, making the likelihood of profit even lower.
In other words,
just to clarify (Score:5, Informative)
What is also interesting is AT&T's reaction in the above article, as I have had telemarketers call me offerring me things like identity theft protection on my AT&T Universal card, yet they aren't at all affiliated with AT&T.
ATT's response (Score:3, Informative)
We want to stress that this FCC investigation is not based on the nationwide do-not- call list that went into effect in October. Instead, it concerns claims by customers who believed they were on an AT&T-specific list and received a call they think was from AT&T.
I have to admit... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing left is for the year to end so that the Must Transmit Caller ID information is in force. I thought it took effect the same time as the DNC, but it doesn't actually take effect to the new year. Anyone automated calling to your house must transmit caller ID information and they have to take proactive steps to actually transmit the information. No excuses.
Re:I have to admit... (Score:2)
Of course I do! Sheesh... otherwise why would I put up with them?
Will the abused get any money? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will the abused get any money? (Score:2)
I may be one of the 29 (Score:5, Interesting)
I was like "I've been bombarded by spam from all directions for the last 15 years.. it's on my truck, my answering machine, my email and the d**n phone. You bed your telemarketing arse I'm reporting you."
I did however leave her last name out of the complaint but ya know what.. at work if I screw up the FAA can fine me 10k.. they should be just as careful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I may be one of the 29 (Score:2)
I got a call from Dell yesterday... (Score:5, Insightful)
Third time's a charm (Score:3, Interesting)
I called the 800 number in the voicemail I personally received, got a manager on the line in record time (it helps if you sound like you want to confirm your satellite recon for the imminent airstrike) and explained that we had a block of numbers, that they were calling ALL of them and to please stop right-fucking-now. I then did the usual bit about do not call lists and a copy of the policy (which I never got). The do not call list was tough, since numbnuts didn't grok the "I have several hundred consecutive numbers" part very well.
The next day they did it again. I got another manager on the line, who was significantly less than understanding about the whole affair. In point of fact, he seemed dismissive of the whole fact that I had complained the day before and tha the was perhaps a bit offended that I was trying to interfere with his attempt to rescue a failing mortgage business. I reminded him about the FCC's $500 per call regulation and he got offended. Go figure. Apaprently the fact that the Federal government might put him out of business wasn't a factor in his worldview. I rang off.
And called the local police department and reported a couple hundred harassing phone calls. I leaned heavily on the second manager's attitude toward my request of the previous day and on his utter disregard for Federal codes covering his business. I named both managers in the complaint. These guys are less than fifty miles from us and in the same state, so it could happen.
We have a case number. Some day they'll screw up, and then a telemarketing manager will do the Perp Walk. I'll be sure to put whatever details I can on a website so we can all share the joy.
Re:Third time's a charm (Score:2)
Maybe I should put a "Maserati's Greatest Hits" section in my journal.
"Proposed" ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Jeezus, I'd love to have a "proposed" fine the next time I get a speeding ticket.
Re:"Proposed" ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a proposed fine. Go to court and offer a counter proposal by following the instructions printed on the back of the ticket. Chances are it will be substantially less. The only way it becomes the actual fine is if you don't challenge the proposal.
Re:"Proposed" ??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Proposed" ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is Stupid and Wrong. You are talking to someone who used to regularly get tickets across 3 states. The only time I've paid what the ticket said was when I was on a trip and would have had to drive 2 hours and it wasn't contestable over mail (which some states do.)
They don't dismiss cases, and I'm not saying they do. They do, however, decrease the fine amount considerably.
Last ticket was $170, just by showing up they offered to settle at $100 without taking it to court.
Re:"Proposed" ??? (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know...maybe because of due process [cornell.edu]?
-h-
Re:"Proposed" ??? (Score:2)
RTFA. AT&T says they have an alibi. I have no idea whether their alibi holds water or not, but they should have a chance to prove it was "only someone who looked like them" before they have to submit for the pecuniotomy.
It AT&T in fact violated the rules they should pay up. If they didn't, I have no problem
Great (Score:2)
By way of example:
Up until I got a cellphone a few months ago, I had long-distance from them, then decided to shut off the service afterwards. After calling and doing so (and being asked if I wanted service again, in the same breath as they told me they closed the account), it took weeks and three more phone calls (along with 3 more attempts to sign me up again) before my a
I Am (or should be) one of those "consumers" (Score:2)
But when I tried to file a complaint the interface was down, then I got really busy and spent a lot less time at home (I suspect the calls still come, they just probably ring out on the answering machine now).
Couldn't happen to a 'nicer' company (Score:3, Interesting)
I was getting about a call a week from them when I finally demanded to be placed on their DNC list. Immediately sfter the request, they began calling 2-3 times a week.
When I asked why they kept calling, they lamely said it took 6-8 weeks for the DNC request to be propagated throughout all of their call lists. Only after roughly 8 weeks (and my launching into a profanity laced tirade on each call) did the calls cease.
Who's profit is it? (Score:2)
It's not like the FCC needs 3/4 of a M$ to stay afloat.
Is the money re-injected in federal-funded communications?
Easy to nail ATT.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Last week, I got a telemarketer call - yes, I'm on the DNC list. I started slyly asking them,"so, what's the name of your company, again?" Then asked them, "what number are you calling from?"
The lady then freaked-out saying that,"You're oon the DNC list! We're downloading the list now." and gave a bunch of other incredibly stupid reasons why they were breaking the law. In the mean time, I kept repeatedly asking for the number. They never gave it to me.
So, I repported them to both the Federal and the State. And on the State's (GA), I placed in my complaint that the company refused to give me their number.
I have a funny feeling that nothing will come of it, since I didn't get their number.
Which leads me to another issue, how do you file a complaint when these shitheads know to game the system? Is the FCC just going after the big fish in hopes of curtailing the little fry? Which means, the little fry can make calls with impunity?
My 3 cents
Re:Easy to nail ATT.... (Score:2)
Effective strategy for deaaling with telemarketers (Score:3, Insightful)
Big Brother has Benefits (Score:5, Funny)
The real question remains to be answered... (Score:2)
Is $780,000 a high enough fine to make AT&T stop violating the law?
WTF? (Score:2)
they may settle (Score:3, Insightful)
Fining att was a smart move by the fcc. If it was some scumbag telemarketing company that got fined they would probably care less what their PR appearance was.
I love getting calls from AT&T! (Score:4, Funny)
AR: We're offering a special long distance package for you. May I ask who provides you with your long distance service?
Me: Yes. I don't have a long distance service.
AR: You don't have one?
Me: Yes.
AR: Sir, do you make any long distance phone calls?
Me: No. (pause to enhance clueless consumer effect)
AR: Sir, we'd like to-
Me: (interrupts) Actually, yes, I make local long distance phone calls.
AR: You don't have a long distance service provider but you make local long distance calls?
Me: Yes.
AR: How is that sir? Do you use pre-paid phone cards?
Me: No.
AR: Uh... How do you place local long distance calls sir?
Me: I use my mobile phone.
AR: And, sir, who is you wireless phone service provider?
Me: AT&T.
AR: Oh... (long pause)... Thank you for your time sir, you have a good night.
I've had this conversation with AT&T three times now. The novelty has not yet worn off. I wonder when they'll compile a list of existing customers, so they can save money on long distance calls.
=D
calls from AT&T!(even if you don't know which (Score:3, Informative)
I don't mean independantly operated, I mean a different company.
AT&T Wireless moved from independant operation to independant in 2000 over 3 years ago.
Trust me, if you had been foolish enough to buy the stock (AWE) you would remember.
The Credit Card is yet another non AT&T company carrying the AT&T brand.
If that's all the violations they've had then they have done quite well. Or I should say thier contra
I was lectured by these bastards ... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know the kind of survey - with questions like - "Did you know that AT&T now has the lowest per minute rate
Phuckers - hope they all burn in hell
fines aren't enough (Score:2, Insightful)
It's kinda funny; (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe their version of "prior business relationship" is when you signed up on the DNC list.
Not authorized to remove my own number from AT& (Score:4, Interesting)
The woman on the other end got very unpleasant very quickly, and asked "Is this [not-my-name]?" I told her that I was not that person, and that this is my phone number. She very quickly (and gleefully I might add) told me that if I was not the person whose name she had, then I was not authorized to place this (MY) phone number on a do-not-call list and that I would continue to receive solicitation calls until I signed up for long distance with AT&T. Then she hung up on me.
That fucking pissed me off. The follow-up call to their customer service to file a complaint and add myself to the do-not-call list was not much better. After about 5 minutes of arguing with the guy that if I had an emergency, I would either dial 911 or go to a neighbor's phone, I finally just kept repeating "You're refusing to add me to your do-not-call list. Let me speak to your manager immediately." Took about 15 times of that with me getting louder and louder each time before he put me on hold for 30 seconds. Then the same guy came back to "confirm my information for the do-not-call list." He then proceeded to mis-speak my number not once, not twice, but 10 times, trying to get me to "confirm" a different number. Only after threatening with the manager bit again did he successfully repeat my number.
As far as I'm concerned, these fuckers should roast in their own shit. About time the government is giving us the power to fight back, and I'm really looking forward to my first $11,000 bonus check from a telemarketer who refused to follow the DNC list.
I'll never understand how they believe that infuriating the potential customer will successfully gain new business. And given the attitude I've gotten from telemarketers, I can guarantee you that the calls are NOT monitored for quality assurance.
Re:I thought AT&T actually ran the DNC list (Score:2, Funny)
"I'm sorry? You say we called a number that was on the do-not-call list? Hmmm...hold on, let me check. What's the number?"
*click click click*
delete from do_not_call_list where phone_no = '212-555-9364'
"No, I don't see it here. Must be some mistake. That's OK, it happens all the time."
Re:International telemarketeers (Score:4, Informative)
Even if it is a foreign corporation, the fines will still stick if they have offices here or are licensed to do business in the US.
The case I'm not real sure about is if you were a foreign corporation, did not have offices in the US, and did no business in the US (i.e. were not licensed to sell anything here, etc.) And if that were the case, then why are you calling me since you can't sell me anything?
Also, if you were a complete independent telemarketing company and were hired to do a campaign into the US for someone else, then I don't know what the law would say. Maybe the fines would apply to the company that paid for the ad campaign?
Re:More DNC scams (Score:2)
Re:More DNC scams (Score:2)
SD
That's Nothing (Score:2)
Re:What's worse... (Score:2)
For a long time, I'd call the FCC, the FTC, and my congresscritters every month or so to complain about such calls.
I suspect I wasn't alone, because now we have the DNC list.
Re:Brief Explaination (Score:2)
Speech that leads directly to physical harm, such as the classic "yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" is not protected.
You're wrong about this in several ways. They're the typical ways that people fuck up when they use the fire example, and it is precisely why I HATE the fire example.
The CORRECT EXAMPLE is essentially 'yelling 'fire' falsely in a