160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List 414
MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."
Political calls are exempt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Conflict of interest (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the nature of the State to allow its representatives to do what is illegal for everyone else.
Re:Conflict of interest (Score:2)
That, and the fact that local tin-pot candidates for parking attendent will spam the global .com .org and .edu domains should surprise no one. (I expect to get spam to my .ca account from Potluck AR, USA, but I'm usually knurd on Klatchian coffee and expect the worst.)
Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes, yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:2)
You expect politicians to live by their own rules, to vote in restrictions on what they can do? Ha! The government also is exempt from a lot of labor laws.
Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:2)
My state, Minnesota, also exempts political calls on its has do-not-call list. Like the one for MA, it has been extremely popular. In just three months, nearly half of the state's residential numbers have been signed up.
Re:Political calls are exempt? (Score:3, Funny)
Aide: What about businesses that rely on telemarketing?
Congressman: Maybe if they can "persuade" me (nudge, nudge), I'll change my mind. Heh.
Aide: But sir! How will we drum up support for our re-election bid?
Congressman: Hmmm. Good point. Let's throw in a few exemptions for "political" campaigns.
Aide: Won't that make you look hypocritical?
Congressman: Nah, I just toss in "non-profit organizations" to deflect attention. It's a home run!
1st Amendment (Score:5, Informative)
There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
Re:1st Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they have a right to say things, but they don't have a right to force me to hear them.
Re:1st Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.
The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.
Here [freedomforum.org] is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending [freedomforum.org] that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read [freedomforum.org])
It has passed muster multiple times (Score:5, Interesting)
Texas v. ABF, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (W.D. Tex, 2000)(fax calls)
Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir.1995) aff'g 844 F.Supp. 632 (D. Or.1994)(fax calls)
Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995) (telemarketing calls) cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161 (1995)
Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995) reh'd. 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997)(fax calls)
Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 668 A.2d 1099 (Super. Ct. N.J. 1996) (telemarketing calls).
Come courts have decided otherwsie; an 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge recently ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court). It has been essentially attacked by every authority since. See Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew my faith in our legal system. This decision by the state court was extremely well done and is highly entertaining reading. Also take a look at the US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling. In addition, another Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.
Links:
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/reference/ot
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/referen
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/refer
It's cool, but there's one downside (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks!
'Erotic sushi' bar serves up tantalizing treats [xnewswire.com]
Re:It's cool, but there's one downside (Score:2)
I did that once. Not only did I stop getting tele-marketing calls, I stopped getting calls from my friends too. Evidentally, just telling them that the sound is fake isn't enough.
Re:It's cool, but there's one downside (Score:3, Interesting)
I think what you're probably paying for is the resources needed to maintain that list. Not sure about where you live, but here in Oregon we can't even keep our schools open. Paying $5 or so (Oregon's cost, not sure what yours is...) doesn't seem like a big deal.
As for having to block them, I see what you're saying but they're rebuttal would be "we make money to keep your costs low." The truth is somewhere in between.
Now you know why I keep my primary communication on the internet. Everybody I know has e-mail, and the vast majority of them are on IM of some sort. I realize that's not going to be a choice for everybody, but it does cut down on the phone traffic.
Since I've cut down on the phone traffic, I only have a cell phone. That means I get caller ID, and a notification when I get voice mail. I don't even jump to get to my phone anymore. It's on silent. When it rings, I read the caller ID and make a choice whether or not to let it go to voice mail. I get around to it eventually. That alone makes telemarketing hard to get through.
Back in the olden days, the phone was something you just had to get to while it was ringing. If you take a more convenient approach like I have, telemarketers aren't so annoying.
Project Mayhem (Score:2)
Re:Project Mayhem (Score:2, Informative)
As my page says, what I'm hoping for is that we can all become so highly annoying to the telemarketers that the DMA will create their own national "we don't want to call" list, and put my name right on the top.
Re:It's cool, but there's one downside (Score:2)
No number is ideal, but 911 is perhaps worse: Most office PBXs make you dial 9 for an outside line, then you have to dial 1 for a long-distance call, then the area code, which may begin with 1. After a long day making phone calls at the office, people can quite easily forget that their home phone doesn't need a 9, and so dial 911 by mistake.
Want to know why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It took me 5 minutes to sign up my home and cell phone numbers for being on the do-not-call list in MA. A toll-free call and 5 minutes. Not a Self-Addressed-Stamped-Envelope or some crazy address that no one can remember or write down fast enough to get signed up on the list.
As long as the other states make it similarly easy to sign up, then you'll get the same participation.
cell phone? (Score:2)
Re:cell phone? (Score:3, Funny)
ostiguy
Re:cell phone? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, a sad day unless you are happy at the prospect of suing them for violating the law. It is already illegal to make a solicitation to a cellular phone, and you can collect $500 per violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. (see here [cornell.edu] for the relevant legalese).
Re:cell phone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then you have to convince a court to take the case. From what I remember, this involves time, a filing fee, and more time.
Re:cell phone? (Score:3, Funny)
Something amusing: In Commonwealth English, the term "solicitor" refers to a lawyer. When I first visited the US, the airport had these annoucements about how you did not have to give money to solicitors, and the airport did not encourage their activities. I found this funny.
Exemptions make it not worth my ~$2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Want to know why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a list of several state's DNC lists (Score:5, Informative)
Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh
Re:Here's a list of several state's DNC lists (Score:2)
You reckon? (Score:2)
Is it paying taxes? Nope. Is it the commercials on tv? Nope. It's some poor SOB calling you while your eating, or on saturday at 8 in the morning trying to offer you some stupid service or credit card you A)don't want and B) didn't sign up for.
I hope and pray those telemarketing bastards get shot down. I have a phone, yes, but it's not so you can peddle your shit to me.
Re:You reckon? (Score:2)
DMA's Side.. (Score:5, Insightful)
All I'm finding on their website is these "Action Alert" things that don't really make any argument other than lots of people have jobs annoying other people over the phone. Lots of people have jobs as prostitutes too. That doesn't make it legal (although I'm much more inclined to have legalized prostitution than I am to outlaw do-not-call lists).
Re:DMA's Side.. (Score:2)
Obligatory Junkbusters link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html [junkbusters.com]
Gives them a run for their money and, best of all, if the telemarketer takes a wrong step, they open the company up to legal action.
Nifty... (Score:2)
How long... (Score:2)
"Hello, will you be voting for Bush in the next election?"
"No."
"Well then, would you like to have the the Daily Liberal newspaper delivered to your door?"
Jason.
Productive and economically vital? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Productive and economically vital? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you ever say 'professional' and 'telemarketer' in the same sentence.
Re:Productive and economically vital? (Score:2)
Yeah right, that's why I keep getting telemarketing calls from people who can barely speak english. These jobs are being farmed out like anything else.
Easy call list (Score:5, Interesting)
If nonprofits are exempt then can't they just solicit everyone on the do-not-call list?
Suppose I have an unlisted number, then it's unlikely that a charity will be able to get my number (unless someone sells it to them). But if I register with the do-not-call list then I've basically published my phone number for every nonprofit and political party to add to their call list.
Why Is Anyone Exempted? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean
I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
Re:Why Is Anyone Exempted? (Score:2)
I'm not saying who's right. Er, left.
Re:Why Is Anyone Exempted? (Score:2)
"Ironically, it's the ACLU that would flip out if political calls were barred. (First Amendment, I mentioned this above) They are currently part of a group ranging from them to the NRA, contesting the campaign finance reform law's restrictions in political advertising."
I'd be very surprised if the ACLU came out against not exempting politicians from this law (though I don't agree with the ACLU on everything, who does?). There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).
You are stupid... (Score:2)
As I understand it, different types of speech are protected to greater or lesser extents by the first amendment. Political speech is the most protected, and the courts are (rightly) loath to allow restrictions on it. Hence, the parts of such a bill that restrict politicians from making unsolicited calls could well, as I understand US law, be found unconstitional.
Nonprofits are a different matter, of course.
IANAL. IANA American, either :)
Why this means nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
The law allows political calls, charity calls and calls from someone you do business with or have done business with. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that a majority of the telemarketing calls I receive fall into one of these very broad catagories.
If a company breaks the rules, how are you going to track them down? And if you track them down, what can you do? In the past, all a company has had to do was show that they were making every effort to adhere to the established rules.
If nothing else, perhaps we should all think about the amount of time and money invested in something like this and realize that it's just a phone call. I mean, my phone has a special anti-telemarketer button that came with it--it's that one you press to hang up.
Re:Why this means nothing. (Score:2)
Re:Why this means nothing. (Score:2)
I pay X dollars for my phone line, if you want to use to make money, you should have to pay me for my line.
what compelling arguments... (Score:3, Funny)
"tearing down this industry" I love it. When the "industry" is calling people in their homes and annoying them with your "amazing new offer," then I say yes! This summer, at my job, Verizon actually called us 3 times in the same day! Seriously. I liked my boss' approach. As soon as they started talking: "I can tell already that I don't want to talk to you." *click"
I think my favorite though is my friend who, when called by some bank being offered a credit card responded with something along the lines of: "That's great! This is just what I need right now. All 6 of my other cards are maxed out, and I had to take out a second mortgage on my house. I was really wondering what I was goign to do!" I think that they actually hung up on her.
Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole direct marketing by phone issue seems to be an area where, with regard to those qualities, you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. If the corprations are unregulated, they'll try and flog stuff to you down the phone day and night. The Market wouldn't seem to work in thia case, as even if 99% of us hang up immediately and boycott the company, the remaining 1% will still provide a customer base the company can get by on. However, if the Feds step in, the companies' freedom goes out the window.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Libertarianism (My views have been pretty well up in the air since Tommy Sheridan destroyed my faith in socialism by being a prick), I was just wondering if any Libertarians here could tell me what their position on this is.
Cheers.
My take on this (Score:3, Interesting)
I think telemarketing is one such breach of that boundary, as well as any other type of unsolicited communication, including e-mails and snail mail. As miniscule the amount of time it wastes, dealing with these intrusions is an unwanted effort that people shouldn't have to expend for the sake of someone else's need.
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:2)
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a rather tricky issue for libertarians. Most libertarians believe in minimumal government regulation and an every-man-for-himself attitude. But, advertisers are the bad guys so it's difficult stand up for them.
As a libertarian I can give you my perspective, but I can't claim to represent most libertarians or that I hold the "purist" libertarian point of view.
Fundamentally I don't believe in anyone's right not to be hassled. If you live among or deal with society you run the risk of interacting with people. You always have the option to go be a hermit or disconnect your phone. There is no right which guarantees you that other people will not be assholes. I don't believe in any basic principle by which a company is never allowed to call you just because you don't want them to. If you make your number public (you have the option not to) you have to accept the consequences.
However, the rights of the company end when they start to invade yours. This is where it gets really tricky. When does a call trample on one of your rights?
Do you have a right not to be annoyed? I don't think so. But, I do believe you have a right every damn penny you own and if a company costs you money by calling then they have trampled on your rights. That's why I favor laws against calling cell phones for marketing purposes. Or, perhaps you receive a high volume of vital calls and sorting out the bogus ones would cost you money. Perhaps you have a line only for emergency purposes and every time it needs to be answered costs you time and money.
All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky. Perhaps it's best for everyone to evaluate their own situation. I don't know anyone who would say "yeah, it costs me nothing when I get called by a telemarketer", so by that method everyone would qualify for the "don't call" list. Is that fair? I don't know.
Ultimately, it depends on a very subjective judgement call. For now I'm perfectly happy to see a very loose interpretation of "that call cost me money/resources/time that I had the right to". But, perhaps it will need to be re-evaluated sometime in the future.
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I've just got my baby to sleep and some arsehole phones up asking if I want a 2nd mortgage, that is costing me more than money, that is interfering in my family life.
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your straw man is aggrivating my sinuses. The relevant principle is that I want telemarketers off the phone line I am paying for. If they want to offer a deal where they pay my phone bill and I let them make X number of calls per month, I'd consider it.
All of these seem like reasonable situations in which to enforce a "don't call this number" rule. But, who gets to decide which numbers qualify and when, etc? That's tricky.
It's not the slightest little bit "tricky". The person who is paying for that phone number to remain in service gets to decide.
Re:Whats the Libertarian take on all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, who needs to think? (Score:3, Insightful)
colorado's list over a million (Score:2)
This is funny... (Score:5, Informative)
E-mail bill
Bill # H.R.718
Original Sponsor:
Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st)
Cosponsor Total: 115
(last sponsor added 06/05/2001)
43 Democrats
72 Republicans
About This Legislation:
This bill would require accurate return addresses on unsolicited commercial e-mail. HR 718 would make it illegal to continue sending junk e-mail to a person who has asked to be removed from a distribution list, require unsolicited commercial e-mail to be labeled, and require ISP's to let their customers opt-out of receiving junk e-mail. The bill would also set a penalty for continuing to send junk e-mail after someone has asked for it to stop. HR 718 would also allow ISP's to sue spammers for $500 per message if they violate their antispam policy.
The DMA opposes HR 718 and has testified before Congress on the bill's onerous provisions.
They don't actually say what provisions they find to be onerous. Is it the fact that people can decide that they don't want to receive junk mail? Or is it the fact that they have to provide an accurate return address? Or maybe it's the fact that they would have to label their advertisements as what they are instead of trying to make people think they are something else. No... couldn't be any of those things. That would make the DMA seem evil
Do-Not-Call lists rock (Score:5, Interesting)
Popular in Colorado (Score:5, Informative)
Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:4, Interesting)
I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.
Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.
Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:5, Insightful)
My mom worked as a telemarketer for a while, doing surveys actually. She did it because she hated humanity
That said, I really think we should be able to cook up better jobs for similarly qualified people, something with some skills taught and upward mobility. If these jobs exist, believe me they'll get taken quick. I regret hearing antiquated or destructive industries defended as "providing jobs" -- most recently by a Christmas tree grower. (Good reason to buy a Christmas tree: you want one. Bad reason: to create jobs.)
Jobs and productivity are good for the economy. But not just any jobs.
Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:2)
BS. (Score:2)
Or just reducing the cost of their product to compete better.
Either way, more money available for something that doesn't annoy people during dinner.
Re:Telemarketing Good for Economy (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I'll get modded down for this :)
I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.
Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family. Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
Right. Let's reword this a little more extremely:
"I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (marketing) of child pornography. I get just as annoyed at child pornographers as everyone else, but these people are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.
"Let them ask if they can take photos of your children, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family."
---
I'm not saying it's as evil as child pornography, but it is still evil. Lack of money is no justification for lack of morality. You have to draw the line somewhere. I suppose mine is a little further over than yours towards respect for an individual's privacy.
.02
cLive ;-)
In related news... (Score:2, Funny)
California's is over-due (Score:3, Informative)
If you are in California, make a fuss about this in your local press.
The AG's office website gives gives some information [state.ca.us], but fails to mention that they've let the deadline slide.
User of the NY Do-Not-Call List (Score:2)
Why would anyone want to be on this list... (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, they're wasting my time by bugging me, providing a ource of amusement is the least they can do.
Re:Why would anyone want to be on this list... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why would anyone want to be on this list... (Score:3, Insightful)
Based on my own experience, "fact 2" does seems realistic.
Another BIG exemption. (Score:4, Informative)
Brainwashed drones or politeness? (Score:2)
I receive almost no unsolicited calls (Score:3, Informative)
I have read that over sixty percent of the populations purchases an item at least once a month in response to a telephone call. I know people who make these calls for a living. Certain people appreciate the opportunity to donate to their charity over the telephone, or to make theatre subscriptions. But telemarketers are not interested in wasting their time in calling people who are not going to buy, donate or subscribe.
Here is a link [dmaconsumers.org] on the Direct Marketing Association website that explains about how to get off telephone list. I can attest that it has worked for me. And the cost was only for a postcard.
Hmm (Score:2)
Get off the line!! (Score:3, Funny)
It works in indiana (Score:2)
A few suits have been filed for violators too.
They institued both a call in line to sign up and a web page.
its funded by the companies purchasing the list so they dont violate the law.. a bit shady i think, but something had to be done.
It only applies to explicit *sales* calls. (Score:2)
Since they're not trying to complete a sale in the call, they wouldn't be excluded.
A pretty piss-weak "do not call" list if you ask me. This legislation makes about as much sense as US foreign policy.
I wouldn't sign up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't sign up (Score:3, Funny)
i often ask if they are on salary on a commission based job...
if they are commission, i tell them that IF they were salary based i would sit and chat so they would have something to do, but since they are commissioned, they need to get another #$%@#% job.
and sometimes, i've chatted with people for so long, they get caught by their boss and fake chit chat...
bah (Score:2)
http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/PDF/nocallcp.pdf [state.ct.us] has a nice little for you could fill out, or call up for, to sign up on the do not call list
this has been going on for years now.
Violations (Score:2, Interesting)
The DMA has a webform for comments (Score:4, Informative)
I cut the suggested text, replaced it with "As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database. The DMA can go to hell", signed it and submitted it.
Phil
Here's Mine: (Score:3, Interesting)
I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the continuance of an industry by ignoring the concerns of the public.
At a time when the number of older Americans is going to grow tremendously, their protection from scam artists and con men is more important than providing jobs for the semi-literate scum who interrupt their dinners.
The American economy doesn't need irate consumers. It needs people to stabilize their credit and be responsible with their money. This does not include purchasing magazines, aluminum siding or family portraits from businesses they do not know.
The DMA's half-hearted attempts to appease the American public with their sorry excuse for a do-not-call list has finally been recognized for what it is - a sham. And the public has finally raised their voice and asked the government to devise a more rigorous scheme to curtail the amount of intrusions we must incur simply by having a telephone number.
As a consumer, I can only hope that the Federal goverment will continue to persue these avenues and also address the problem of unsolicited email in the future. Until that time, however, I fully expect the DMA to stand up for the thieves and spammers so that I might also increase the size of my penis by three inches while refinancing my mortgage and protecting my Windows computer from viruses. Being that I have neither a penis, a mortgage, or a computer running Windows, I will rejoice when legislation is passed to finally put an end to unsolicited email, as well.
--mandi
Related Telemarketing Scam (Score:2)
http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketsc
One possible challenge the DMA could mount (Score:3, Interesting)
My letter to elected officials (Score:3, Informative)
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
I am entirely in favor of a national do-not-call list.
I find it obnoxiously intrusive to constantly receive solicitation from
telemarketers in my own home, which too often take too much of the
precious time i wish to spend with loved ones, while recovering from my
rigorous working hours.
Furthermore, while telemarketers are supposed to be trained to respect
people's right to say "no", it has been my personal experience to find it
often challenging to exercise that right, faced with somewhat resilient
telemarketers who just would not take "NO" for an answer.
Current laws already give me the right to request from the caller that
they no-longer call me. When getting 3 to 5 different telemarketing calls
in a same evening, this already represents more time than i am willing to
spend to protect a peaceful existence.
The Direct Marketing Association does have an opt-out list. No business is
*required* to become part of the DMA. While they provide strict rules for
their members to abide by, enforcing those rules and punishing offenders
strictly relies on *potential* complaints from residents, which requires a
significant amount of work from the resident to determine whether or not
the telemarketer belongs to the DMA, and for the DMA to follow-up on those
issues. While the system appears to be beneficial on the surface, I truly
believe it provides no *significant* protection to victims of telemarketer
calls.
In my view, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the
privacy of citizens who make the conscious decision to not ever be
sollicited by telemarketers while at home. I believe a federally-regulated
do-not-call list with provisions for strong sanctions against offenders is
the single, true, effective answer to a problem that has been plaguing our
society for far too many decades.
Sincerely,
[ME. HEH]
More calls, less telemarketers (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, they began again.
However, now instead of a telemarketer on the other end when I pick up the phone, all I get is a "click" and I am disconnected.
The automated calling systems still call me - more than ever it seems (a DOZEN calls a day is a bit much, dontchathink?) - but now they do not transfer me to a telemarketer, but simply disconnect me.
Their numbers are completely blocked and I cannot find out who they are, but I'm sure even if I did, they would claim they are not actually violating the rules, as they are not talking to me.
You don't pay, telemarketers do. (Score:5, Interesting)
WI has one of these that JUST went effective Jan 1. I signed up in October, when I was getting 2-3 calls between 8 and 11 am every morning and another 2-5 every night. I have received 3 calls since Jan 1 total, 2 hangups and 1 person from the trooper's association. (I don't do contributions on the phone, too many scams where 10% of the money goes to the organization.)
It took me a week to realize I wasn't getting the calls anymore, hard to notice silence, but it is a tremendous difference. Yay for productive legislation.
Now, if anyone can tell me where to sign up for the NO SPAM list, I'll be even happier.
Texas (Score:2)
Ours is damn expensive. Check this out:
I wanna know where the hell all that money is going!
Re:Why do consumers need to pay? (Score:2)
Re:Sounds Familiar (Score:2, Insightful)
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statue or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
Telemarketing does not help the economy. (Score:2)
We shouldn't be paying people to waste other people's time when we could be paying them to do something productive. Hell, it would be better for the economy if we just paid those people not to do anything, like we do with farmers.
Re:Telemarketing does not help the economy. (Score:2)
I have relatives that are farmers, up an hour before sunrise doing nothing. Dirty and sweaty by 9 am bacause there doing nothing. Walkiong there fields checking for bugs that might be doing nothing...
Re:It was real nice of them... (Score:3, Informative)
Heh. Their script probably ignores what you put in the text box and just mails their own text to the legislators. That way they don't have to worry about people accidentally saying something they don't mean. And the legislators don't have to read each email. They just see that there's 100,000 emails from the DMA site that all say the same thing. No fuss, no muss :)
Re:do-not-mail? (Score:2)
Phone connections are maintained by a very small set of "centralized", domestic companies.
So:
1) You can tell where the phone call is coming from
2) You can subpeona a phone company to find out who its customers called and when
3) You can "easily" change the rules by enforcing them on a relatively small number of organizations
4) Everyone on the phone network has an identity - there are no "open relays" on the phone network where you can make 1 million calls in a day.
Re:This kind of regulation tramples liberty (Score:4, Interesting)
[DAFFY DUCK] Aha -- PRONOUN TROUBLE! [/DAFFY DUCK]
Certainly, the telemarketers have the right to use their phones as they wish. This right guarantees that they may call one another to their heart's content. However, they do not have the right to appropriate the use of my phone line.