Congress May Permit Robot Calls To Cell Phones 619
TCPALaw writes "While many hoaxes have circulated in the past about cell phone numbers being opened up to telemarketers, it now may actually happen. A bill, HR 3035 (PDF), has been introduced in Congress, that would create numerous exceptions to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which banned autodialed and prerecorded robot calls to cell phone numbers. If passed, HR 3035 would permit a wide range of autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones that are currently prohibited, and would preempt practically all state laws providing similar protections. This is being applauded by debt collectors and banks (PDF) ... as if the bailouts weren't enough, now they get to make you pay for their calls to you."
Pay to call, not to recieve. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why cell phones should be pay to call. Not pay to receive. You have no control over who calls you, therefore it makes no sense to agree to pay for incoming calls. Any plan without free incoming calls is a non-starter for me.
Re:Simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only person here thinking that at least part of the reason behind this is so that the GOP and/or the DNC can legally get away with robocalling voters?
Incentive -- no lobbying needed on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you know who, aside from bill collectors, banks and telemarketers, wants to robo-dial your phone?
Those same congresspeople. For polling, GOTV and of course dirty tricks.
Re:Incentive -- no lobbying needed on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a public service announcement reminding all registered Democrats not to forget election day, November 3rd.
Re:You have to pay? (Score:4, Insightful)
In many places you don't pay for incoming calls at all. The caller pays a higher rate for calling a cell phone instead. Of course that means you can't put cell phones and land line phones in the same area code prefix blocks since there has to be some way to tell which is which when making a call.
This is true throughout Europe. Unfortunately the higher rate for calling a cell phone is often 1-2 _orders_of_magnitude_ higher if you're calling from the states on a calling card. Before Skype I used to talk to my girlfriend in Europe for 1 cent a minute if she found a landline or 20-50 cents a minute if I had to call her cell. At ~3000 minutes a month and grad student incomes it meant we had to put a lot of effort into finding reliable pay phones.
Google Voice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only person here thinking that at least part of the reason behind this is so that the GOP and/or the DNC can legally get away with robocalling voters?
You're one of the few people who won't make it a partisan issue.
I don't answer numbers I don't know - since most of us don't get unlimited calling, I think any cold-calling absolutely sucks and ought to be banned, or callers ought to be made to pay credit to your phone account (whether it's mobile or not). I don't know if it's still this way, but in Brazil the caller paid cellphone charges for calling a mobile number. Suddenly that seems like a great idea.
Re:You have to pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. When we say the cell market is terrible in the US, we're not kidding. We also pay for incoming texts. You can nail people for $0.20 a pop by text bombing them. The major carriers use incompatible technologies, so it's a major hassle to take your business elsewhere... not that any of them offer a better deal anyway.
Re:Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only person here thinking that at least part of the reason behind this is so that the GOP and/or the DNC can legally get away with robocalling voters?
Perhaps - as many of us are aware that existing law already exempts political calls anyway. The proposed bill wouldn't grant them any more access than they already have. There are MANY reasons to oppose this bill and I suggest that people should contact their congressman/woman to voice their concerns - but not for the reason you raise here.
Re:If this is true, I wouldn't mind this law (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh.
Re:The current law is already too weak (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember to keep it alive. Judgments that are not acted on for a period of time can become dormant and eventually die (thereby becoming noncollectable).
Interestingly enough, you may be able to file with the IRS to levy against JK's tax returns
As an aside, my favorite collections story involves my former boss, who had a client who won a huge claim against Walmart. Walmart refused to cooperate with the collection efforts and basically ignored everything. So he levied against all the property they owed in the county. He then proceeded to go to a store one day with the Sheriff's office and opened every single cash register, emptied it and, when that wasn't enough, had them open the safe and took that money too. When they showed up the next day at a different Walmart to do the same thing, Walmart, remarkably enough, had a manager waiting for them to write a check for the rest of the money and collection costs.
Re:Pay to call, not to recieve. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it costs the same in physical resources. But it doesn't necessarily benefit both parties. The caller is the one who wants to initiate contact, so he should pay. The recipient may want the call, they may not want the call, or they may not care at all. But we know for certain the caller wants the call to go through. Since every phonecall has a caller and a recipient, every phonecall gets paid for by someone who wants that phone call.
To put this another way, if I take a shit on your lawn, it takes the same resources to clean it up whether I pay for it, or you pay for it. Is it fair for me to ask you to pay half those costs?
Re:If Only (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not being courteous, it's being naive - at least in todays' society.
Re:Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The DNC wants to raise taxes to pay the price for continued society. It is the RNC who refuse to pay for the government they enact and it has been for 30 years.
Given two choices, Tax and Spend or Debt and Spend, guess which one is more sustainable? The alternative Pillage and Run promoted by the tea party is not a viable alternative.
Re:Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Democratic congress critters have been doing the same thing. Prior to the 2010 elections, one of our House reps (also a Dem at that time) had automated messages hitting me every evening.
I suspect it's not "Republican turds," but rather the consequence of political turds. Lots of reps do it--it's just that we complain less when it's someone with whom we agree.
Re:Simple. (Score:1, Insightful)
I often wonder if it isn't the anti-tea party people who are the real racists.
After all, they're the ones who seem to think that there can't be a single good reason to want Obama out of office except that he's black. Therefore, anybody who wants him out of office must want him out because he's black.
Which side is the one focused on race there?
Re:Simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
The cost of waging war is is far less than our deficit spending. The entire cost of our military including the wars, all research, development and readiness is about half of our deficit spending.
Bringing the troops home is not enough. Taxes have to be raised, period. There is no alternative that doesn't leave America a shattered shallow mockery of a failed state.
Re:Simple. (Score:1, Insightful)