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."
Simple. (Score:3)
I will send them a bill if they get through, and only pre-approved (i.e. in my phonebook) calls will ring my phone.
I ignore voicemail from everyone.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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?
No, you are not. In fact, I think that's the biggest reason behind this bill. The new generation doesn't have land lines, so in order to annoy the piss out of potential votes, they need to be able to call cell phones.
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 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: (Score:3)
Note the phrase: "doesn't leave America a shattered shallow mockery of a failed state."
There is NO way to cut enough fat to balance the federal budget without causing serious harm to this country if we do not also raise taxes. There are plenty of places to trim and shrink the government, but that alone will not solve the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you actually, truly believe that???
From what I can tell...they mostly want to get back to following the US Constitution more closely.
Basically that means...smaller Federal Govt. More power to the states....
I don't think it views the rich or the poor as that they aren't really addressed in the US constitution. The govt is supposed to be there basically, to allow you the freedom and tools to make a success for yourself.
It isn't formed to give you a way of life, to care for you, etc. If more
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Has nothing to do with GOP/DNC on that level (Score:5, Informative)
they are already exempt from the restriction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall [wikipedia.org]
Robocalls are made by all political parties in the United States, including but not limited to both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as unaffiliated campaigns, 527 organizations, unions, and individual citizens. Political robocalls are exempt from the United States National Do Not Call Registry. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. However, political groups are excluded from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) definition of telemarketer, thus robocalls from or on behalf of political organizations are still permitted on the federal level.[1]
Re: (Score:3)
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?
I'd expect that's only an added bonus. Really, they're probably thinking much more along the lines of "Direct marketing industry wants this, telecom wants this, banking and finance want this, no industry opposes it, easy yes, win $50,000 in 'campaign contributions'."
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:Simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a collection agency robocall my landline for about 3 months calling at all hours about 3 times a day. It left a message to call an 800 number and ask for Bob. I ignored it as a sales call. If I picked up the phone, there was NEVER a person on the line. It was a robo call to deliver a message.
A Google search showed the 800 number was a collection agency. Bob was fictitious to cue the agency it was a delinquent caller. This collection agency was hammering an old number that became my new landline.
I figured they pay the bill for calls to 800 numbers so I recorded a message and started calling the 800 number with the message "Your autodialer is running amook on my landline. Please call me to let me know when you have this fixed. Ask for Bob" When I got a call, I called back late at night (I work nights) and left them the message. I finally got a real person to call. A short exchange let them know the number was a new phone. I also gave them a real hard time as there was no way for anyone to stop the robo calls if they did not speak English.
If it happens again, I have a Russian co worker I'll have call them and only speak Russian except for "Ask for Bob"
Robo dialing is one thing. Robo calls with nobody on the line should be 100% outlawed, even for collections.
Re:Simple. (Score:5, Informative)
Those collection agency calls where they call you and tell you to call a number and ask for $NAME are a scam. In my case, they'd call wanting to talk about a "check I had written". They were robocalling me for months, probably close to a year before I finally disconnected that land line (for other unrelated reasons, though it was nice to be free of those calls finally)
Turns out this was a fraudster company that would bully people into thinking they had an unpaid debt and to pay the "debt" off. Once you started talking to them they'd even threaten you with legal action if you didn't pay; legal action that would never come, of course, since the whole thing was fraudulent.
I'm not sure if it's still going on. Remember, real debt collectors call you directly (no robocalls), address you by name and can specify precisely what you owe and to whom.
Wha? robocalls usually don't leave voicemail?!?! (Score:3)
Robocalls -do- leave voicemail. I get tons of it.
Voicemail spam is actually THE major reason I am going to kill my land-line (hear that, FairPoint?).
Sadly, you are right about the parties trying to "close the cell phone loophole". While the bill's primary sponsor is a house gop'er, it is co-sponsored by a NYC democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a lot of received calls in the US cost money, which is one reason why there were protections against marketers cold calling cell phones. If you have a prepay account, it goes against your tally, and minutes go against your plan if you have a contract.
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: (Score:2)
yup.
pre-paid phone. It suits my needs fine, and I only spend about $150-$200/year on my cell phone. Down side is that I pay for everything, listening to VM, text sent, received, calls).
Hello from the United States! (Score:2)
Re:Simple. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course they won't pay the bill. But, I will send it, write it off as noncollectable, then file a 1099 with the IRS of forgiven debt. (nothing better than being pedantic with the IRS). I assume one of these days it'll get me audited, but until then I will continue to have fun (much like the guy who is suing spammers for violations of the CAN-SPAM act).
-nB
Lobbyists (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lobbyists (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lobbyists (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it amazing that everyone knows that our government is for sale, but nobody wants to do anything about it?
Campaign finance reform is a joke, since it has to be passed by the people who benefit from its absence.
Open source governance [wikipedia.org] is a lot harder to make happen, but considering that there are ZERO other options, what exactly do we have to lose? Our plutocracy? Our enslavement to the rich and powerful?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it amazing that everyone knows that our government is for sale, but nobody wants to do anything about it?
The rest of us don't "do anything about it" because we've long ago realized that nothing short of a revolution will change anything (since the people who would have to vote for this are the very people who benefit the most from the old system). And since the American people are way to fat and lazy to pick up rifles like the Libyans, we've decided it's not worth bothering. Besides, even if we did have a revolution, how would you get anyone to agree on a government afterwards? You would just end up with a bun
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Campaign finance reform is a joke, since it has to be passed by the people who benefit from its absence.
You'd think all those Tea Party types would have been all over this. Guess they don't care either.
Re: (Score:3)
That's sort of the point, people complain about how they're being treated by corporations, and come next election the GOP has no trouble getting votes.
The Democrats aren't saints, but at this point they're the only party that ever seems interested in stepping in to help the voters out against corporate interests.
Debt collectors and banks? (Score:2)
Re:Debt collectors and banks? (Score:5, Informative)
Prerecorded, I don't know. But if a debt collector calls you with an autodialer, you can take them to small claims court for $500, as it's illegal. If you can demonstrate that they willfully ignored the law, it's $1500.
Re: (Score:3)
Not a prerecorded call, but an autodialer. I forgot to specify, though, that it applies to cell phones only (as far as I know). Article here [consumerist.com].
Debt collectors already call... (Score:2)
Re:Debt collectors already call... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not being courteous, it's being naive - at least in todays' society.
Re: (Score:2)
I gert regular calls for deadbeats that just make up a number. I've had this number for 5 1/2 years, never assigned elsewhere.
Feh. Loser deadbeats. Fortunately, I don't sound female, nor Hispanic, and the collectors figure it out quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
The way the North American Numbering Plan is structured (which is shared between the US, Canada, and a few other countries), there's not really any way to have a separate prefix for mobile phones. Mobiles and landlines are mixed in the same area codes Thus, calling (000) 555-0111 might go to a landline, while (000) 555-0112 might go to a mobile.
Since the caller has no idea whether or not the recipient is on a mobile with this numbering plan, it wasn't possible to introduce the European-style billing mod
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, Switzerland must be a bit more expensive then than e.g. Germany. My iphone contract costs about 40 euros a month, and I had the choice of either free calls to land lines or free calls to other mobile phones of the same provider (t-mobile), plus it has unlimited SMS and unlimited data transfer (well, with a transfer rate reduction after 200MB, but still, you can keep surfing forever without any extra cost).
I really prefer the european model of "caller pays". I would not want any contract where I do not
Re:Pay to call, not to recieve. (Score:4, Interesting)
If it's any consolation, cell phones work the same way in China; call recipient is docked minutes as well as the caller.
Re: (Score:3)
On the flip side, you don't have to pay extra to call a cell phone number in the US, unlike in Europe. I think that's why texting took off sooner in Europe; if you wanted to get in touch, you'd have to pay a lot more to call someone than to text them. In the US you could just pick up the phone & call them, usually for free if it was a landline. You'll notice long distance providers quote calls to the EU differently for landlines & mobiles; the US is all the same rate.
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?
You have to pay? (Score:3)
You have to pay to be called? Someone can rack up your phone bill by repeatedly calling you? That doesn't sound right.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every calling plan has free incoming minutes.
And I remember, "back in the day" (1992 or so) when incoming time counted on my cell phone where I had 20 minutes a month, at $0.50 per additional minute over that. (that was an improvement over my starting plan, which was 10 minutes a month, $1.00 each additional !) Wrong numbers got VERY annoying very fast. Apparently a drug dealer or something was giving out my number, got call after call asking for the same person, and every single one of them hung up o
Re: (Score:3)
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:You have to pay? (Score:5, Informative)
Call up your carrier and have them disable SMS. If they refuse or can't do it (they can) then call them up every time you receive a SMS and tell them to remove it from your bill.
AT&T has effectively disabled my ability to receive SMS messages (I refuse to pay for GSM SMS when it's sent with every fucking packet anyway) and they have also set me up with free SMS anyway because one phone number which keeps sending me texts was getting through anyway (they don't know why).
Is it an inconvenience? Sure. I had to call 8x to get them to fix it properly. But do they need to learn not to charge people for SMS when it's effectively free? Yes.
Google Voice Account (Score:3)
True, the downside is that you're using the big G and they're mining your texts for data like everything else. However, you can pull up your GoogleVoice account in a browser, and send texts back and forth to whomever for free.
Re:You have to pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google Voice makes it easy to change carriers, and with a smartphone, incoming and outgoing text messages are fre, if you use their app. Also, they filter out junk calls.
My only worry is, what happens if Google Voice goes away?
Re: (Score:3)
I am pay-as-you-go (not for lack of money, but since I hate contracts and I bought my own phone, so I need no 'favors' from the phone co.) and each minute DOES cost me, incoming or outgoing.
I was lucky enough to be able to disable all incoming texts (I hate the very concept, don't get me started...) but had I not set that attrib up on my account, each spam sent to me would help my balance get closer and closer to zero ;(
best that I just opt entirely out of texts. I'm not a teenager and too old for the text
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Roaming seems to be the closest thing in Europe to paying to receiving calls. If I'm from Scotland, on holiday in Greece, you'll pay for calling me in Scotlsnd while I pay for the cost of a call from Scotland to Greece. When my contract expires I'll be ditching 02 contracts. Its not cheap, and despite being on bill pay (not the basic package) I still pay whenever I collect voicemail. Easier for me to go for pay as you go, what with Skype and all that.
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: (Score:3)
I hate to reply to myself, but the situation is murkier still. First, Payne's name doesn't appear on the bill itself. Instead we see "Mr. TERRY (for himself and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce." Weirder still is that neither of these Members appear on the OpenSecrets list of sponsors. Maybe they're having a database problem?
Lee Terry is a Nebraska Republican [opensecrets.org] with a lot support from famed "socialist" Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway.
Re: (Score:2)
I've gotten political robocalls for several years, maybe more than 5.
Does anyone know if robocalling is useful? (Score:2)
If it weren't, I'm guessing nobody would do it. But I used to get robocalls at my old business, and it was always very obvious, so I always hung up inside of 2 seconds. So someone must not mind being called, and in fact buy the stuff that's being marketed?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Debt collectors and banks? They shouldn't be robocalling. Those situations are where they have a pre-existing relationship with the person being called, and aren't cold-calling anybody.
Robocalls are the telephone equivalent of spam. Why is it I can put a "No solicitors" sign on my door, but my phone must be subject to cold-calling from telemarketers, solicitations for "charities" and political groups, and any scammer who can operate a telephone? And they want to make it easier to bother lots of people at a time by allowing robocalling?
If anything, every telemarketing call should have to be hand-dialed, etc., no computer assistance. Think of the jobs that would be created.... Do it for the economy.
I wonder how soon the phone companies will work out a deal to let telemarketers call the phone customers, for a fee - because we know how much they care about the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a "No Soliciting" sign on my door (it was from a previous owner). Contrary to belief, the actual meaning of it is that a person may not use your property to sell their product to other people. It doesn't prevent them from selling items to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, my bank likes to robocall me to get me to sign up for their visa card. Last time they did it I informed then any future calls would result in my moving my accounts. If I wanted their visa I would call them about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Funny)
If anything, every telemarketing call should have to be hand-dialed, etc., no computer assistance. Think of the jobs that would be created.... Do it for the economy.
Not only that, they should have to be hand-dialed with a rotary phone.
Nip it in the bud. (Score:5, Informative)
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml [house.gov]
Just forward your calls to Congress (Score:3)
don't like it, but can't help it (Score:2)
With more people using their cell phones primarily and people cutting the landline, you know this was coming.
It was nice while it lasted. At least now, everyone can screen their calls.
A part of the law should be the ability for customers to block unknown numbers automatically.
Re: (Score:2)
CORRECTION: You know this was coming in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't want anything bad to happen.
Just be sure to add all the local hospitals to your contacts.
And the city jail. And county. And any local police department numbers.
And all your cow-orkers if you're unfortunate enough to be on-call at work.
And your bank(s).
And any numbers your credit card companies might be calling from.
Might be better to have a blacklist app.
fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, won't get fooled ag
Re: (Score:3)
I've found that if it's *REALLY* important (e.g. life or death), they will call several times before giving up.
For example, when my sister was in the hospital, her boyfriend called my phone several times. I didn't have his number so I didn't answer it. He left a message the first time and told me that he'd keep trying to call.
By his third call, I realized the same number just tried to call and it must be an emergency.
Creditors usually don't do this since they get paid only if you pi
If this is true, I wouldn't mind this law (Score:2)
Businesses increasingly rely on advanced communications technologies to convey timely and important information to consumers. These calls notify consumers about threats such as data breaches and fraud alerts, provide timely notice of flight and service appointment cancellations and drug recalls, and protect consumers against the adverse consequences of failure to make timely payments on an account.
If this is true, and this is the intended purpose of this law, and if it still keeps the telemarketers out, the
Re:If this is true, I wouldn't mind this law (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh.
Considering all the collectors who call me (Score:2)
are either trying to reach someone who had my number, pulled it out of thin air when getting credit, or because of my sister, this is the last thing that I want. I use a prepay cell phone (I am a stickler for costs) and unless we adopt a callers pays method of billing with cell phones all I can see is a world of hurt coming out of this.
The current law is already too weak (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Motherfuckers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
They must have a corporate bank account you can seize the funds from it. Always think of your judgment as a long term investment that attracts typically 12% APR depending on State, and which you can pursue for as long as you wish.
Re: (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 th
Re: (Score:3)
Oh joy. (Score:3)
Thank you Mr. Terry (Score:2)
Thank you Mr. Terry for being the acme of your fine party and branch of legislature.
Seriously, have the orbital cannons come online yet?
Google Voice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have found the the "beta" spam feature of google voice does a good job of filtering out crap calls. Also, every cell phone that I have used for the past 10 years has had caller ID. I just don't answer calls that I don't recognize. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail.
Another lesser known use for Google is to type in the number in question and getting some type of listing for them. That way...if they leave a number...you can call them back if you like or just let them hang in the wind. Even if the number isn't specific to a listing...for instance a telemarketer or bill collector...others have been harassed as well and will complain online about it.
Had my roommate see me do this with a number which wasn't in my phone book. He was amazed you could use Google to find a p
Bad summary as usual, I don't see it (Score:3)
I don't see anything in the bill to object to. Telephone soliciting is still prohibited, and if a debt collector is after you I think you have other things to worry about.
In fact, the only scenario I can see as a real problem is when debt collectors rack up charges robo-calling you. Just take every charge off the amount you owe until it's a wash. Or actually pick up the phone and figure out how to deal with your debt, and inform them that you are being charged, and you do not have a prior business relationship as defined in the Communications Act and this is a mobile phone.
Anyone have a better summary?
Looks like "Ignore" will get a bunch of new number (Score:2)
my landline just became more useful (Score:2)
This is exactly why I've kept my landline despite the fact I almost never use it. I keep it around to give to banks and others who need a phone number from me so I don't have to give them my cell number. No way I want telemarketers calling my cell.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a google voice number and give that out. There I just saved you $20/month.
This bill prohibits telemarketing to cellphones... (Score:2)
I just looked at the bill. It says
‘‘(iv) to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio
common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless the call is made for a commer
cial purpose that does not constitute a telephone solicitation;’’.
The problem is that the current law is not enforced. Just in the past few days I got multiple machine dialed calls from someone tryi
Re: (Score:3)
File a complaint [donotcall.gov]. It takes a while, but they do actually process these. I filed several of them years back and recently received E-mails notifying me that they had taken action. You don't get any money out of it, but it's my understanding that the companies in violation are fined, so filing enough complaints will (hopefully) provide a disincentive to harass people.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank Nebraska (Score:2)
This was introduced by the Republican Congressman from Nebraska. Are people in that state not caring if they get autodialers hitting their cell phones all day?
If I don't recognize the caller ID, I don't answer (Score:2)
If I don't recognize the caller ID, I don't answer. It really is that simple. Most of these things won't go to voicemail. If they start doing that, there will be more countermeasures.
Hey, how about providing services that we want or need? How about providing them in a friendly and courteous manor, like the local coffee shop? They get more of my money than I want to count. A certain major telecom that telemarketed me back in the 90s? I'm *still* reluctant to ever use their service.
Bipartisanship! (Score:2)
Sponsor Lee Terry (R) and co-sponsor Edolphus Towns (D).
Well, fuck me. Finally something both parties can agree on: screwing the US public.
We ALWAYS paid... (Score:2)
"now they get to make you pay for their calls to you"
Well, even in the days of landlines, we always paid. Yes, we PAID for our service.
But it was flat-rate for incoming calls.
I've got an unlimited voice plan now, so I can take time to waste these calls and eventually get dropped from the list. But not everyone does I know.
Just remember, landlines always were paying for incoming calls, just not by the minute. Apparently towers are more precious than cables.
Cell phone company calling (Score:2)
Is there an app for that? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Republicrats suck.
If you vote either Democrat or Republican you are part of the problem.