1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by PDA Man, Sep 24, 2003.

  1. PDA Man

    PDA Man Guest

    Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

    Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

    For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
     



    › See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
  2. This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
    vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency appeal.

    --
    Chris

    Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


    "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
    <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
    > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    >
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > Content-Type: text/plain;
    > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    >
    > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
    > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
    > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
    > Lets hope this stop is short lived.
    >
    > Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
    > overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
    > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
    > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
    > into effect Oct. 1.
    >
    > For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > Content-Type: text/html;
    > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
    > <HTML><HEAD>
    > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
    > charset=3Diso-8859-1">
    > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
    > <STYLE></STYLE>
    > </HEAD>
    > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
    > size=3D2>Since this has been=20
    > discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
    > encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
    > interested,=20
    > and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
    > short=20
    > lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97&nbsp; A federal judge has ruled that the =
    > Federal Trade=20
    > Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
    > do-not-call list=20
    > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
    > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > do not=20
    > want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
    > effect Oct.=20
    > 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
    > href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
    > HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
    >
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  3. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    "Chris Russell" <noone@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
    news:vn417o447gc1a9@corp.supernews.com...
    > This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
    > vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency

    appeal.
    >
    > --
    > Chris


    I read in another news article where they felt they could overturn
    this decision ... and if they can't, I hope that judge gets put on
    every telephone list out there ...

    Bob
     
  4. Mark F

    Mark F Guest

    I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
    of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
    delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
    for himself.

    IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
    an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
    --
    Mark


    noone@nospam.nospam (Chris Russell) wrote in article
    <vn417o447gc1a9@corp.supernews.com>:
    > This is just the first step in the court process. Maybe this was a
    > vindictive Federal Judge and might be overturned on emergency appeal.
    >
    > --
    > Chris
    >
    > Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com
    >
    >
    > "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
    > <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
    > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    > >
    > > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > > Content-Type: text/plain;
    > > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    > >
    > > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
    > > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
    > > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
    > > Lets hope this stop is short lived.
    > >
    > > Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
    > > overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
    > > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
    > > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > > do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
    > > into effect Oct. 1.
    > >
    > > For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
    > > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > > Content-Type: text/html;
    > > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    > >
    > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
    > > <HTML><HEAD>
    > > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
    > > charset=3Diso-8859-1">
    > > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
    > > <STYLE></STYLE>
    > > </HEAD>
    > > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
    > > size=3D2>Since this has been=20
    > > discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
    > > encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
    > > interested,=20
    > > and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
    > > short=20
    > > lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97&nbsp; A federal judge has ruled that the =
    > > Federal Trade=20
    > > Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
    > > do-not-call list=20
    > > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
    > > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > > do not=20
    > > want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
    > > effect Oct.=20
    > > 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
    > > href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
    > > HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
    > >
    > > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
    > >

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  5. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    news:vn450d8cauee45@corp.supernews.com...
    > I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
    > of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
    > delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
    > for himself.
    >
    > IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
    > an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
    > --
    > Mark
    >



    You'd think that companies would at least honor the wishes of people who
    don't want to be called, regardless of whether the FCC had the authority or
    not. But they're just after money, so they don't care how annoying they
    are.
     
  6. William Bray

    William Bray Guest

    The last thing tele-marketers want to do is respect the right of the
    person on the other end not wanting to be harassed by them. Greed
    rules. With this action they can slam dunk anyone who tries to sue them
    for being invasive into their lives.

    "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in article
    <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>:
    > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    >
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > Content-Type: text/plain;
    > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    >
    > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
    > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
    > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
    > Lets hope this stop is short lived.
    >
    > Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission =
    > overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list =
    > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by =
    > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go =
    > into effect Oct. 1.
    >
    > For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920
    > Content-Type: text/html;
    > charset="iso-8859-1"
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    >
    > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
    > <HTML><HEAD>
    > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
    > charset=3Diso-8859-1">
    > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
    > <STYLE></STYLE>
    > </HEAD>
    > <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff background=3D""><FONT face=3DArial =
    > size=3D2>Since this has been=20
    > discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also=20
    > encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am =
    > interested,=20
    > and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is =
    > short=20
    > lived.<BR><BR>Sept 24 =97&nbsp; A federal judge has ruled that the =
    > Federal Trade=20
    > Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national =
    > do-not-call list=20
    > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by=20
    > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they =
    > do not=20
    > want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into =
    > effect Oct.=20
    > 1.<BR><BR>For the rest of the story <A=20
    > href=3D"http://palmplace.blogspot.com">CLICK =
    > HERE</A></FONT></BODY></HTML>
    >
    > ------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C382A8.BF2E3920--
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  7. Just so you know, the FTC Federal Trade Commission effected the "Do Not
    Call" list, not the FCC Federal Comunication Commission. The appeal
    will probably go to the 3 judge panel in that district, or because of
    the lateness of the hour the Supreme Court Justice that supervises that
    state will accept an emergency appeal to the full Supreme Court with
    consultation of the other Justices. Let's hope so.

    --
    Chris

    Please respond on Usenet or Phonescoop.com


    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in article
    <cd023309ccfd696f7bbd5220608515c4@news.teranews.com>:
    >
    > "Mark F" <askme@askme.com> wrote in message
    > news:vn450d8cauee45@corp.supernews.com...
    > > I think 50 Million people who utilize phone numbers in the US is enough
    > > of a reason to let it go. Who the heck does this judge think he is to
    > > delay it. He is probably some small time judge trying to make a name
    > > for himself.
    > >
    > > IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
    > > an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!
    > > --
    > > Mark
    > >

    >
    >
    > You'd think that companies would at least honor the wishes of people who
    > don't want to be called, regardless of whether the FCC had the authority or
    > not. But they're just after money, so they don't care how annoying they
    > are.
    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  8. In article <wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>, PDA Man wrote:

    > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the =
    > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. =
    > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. =
    > Lets hope this stop is short lived.


    All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    rid of solicitation calls on them.

    Geoff.

    --
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson gsm@mendelson.com 972-54-608-069
    Icq/AIM Uin: 2661079 MSN IM: geoffrey_mendelson@hotmail.com (Not for email)
    Carp are bottom feeders, koi are too, and not surprisingly are ferrets.
     
  9. Jer

    Jer Guest

    PDA Man wrote:
    > Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the
    > fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this.
    > I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start.
    > Lets hope this stop is short lived.
    >
    > Sept 24 — A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission
    > overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list
    > against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by
    > telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they
    > do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go
    > into effect Oct. 1.
    >
    > For the rest of the story CLICK HERE <http://palmplace.blogspot.com>



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

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
     
  10. Opentoe

    Opentoe Guest

    Re: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

    Doesn't matter to me...I usually keep my phone off the hook and when I do answer it soon as I hear the idiot trying to sell me something, I hang up. They do call on weekends, during the most times when people are home....soon I'll just disconnect all together and just use my cell phone.

    "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message news:wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

    Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

    For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
     
  11. Opentoe

    Opentoe Guest

    Re: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

    Hahahaha, so now that list of phone numbers that the FTC has will be sold to the telemarketers!
    "PDA Man" <pda@theman.com> wrote in message news:wV2dnV5xwPlIfuyiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
    Since this has been discussed when the List was first announced, and the fact that it also encompassed cellular numbers, I feel OK to post this. I know I am interested, and PISSED. Was looking forward to the start. Lets hope this stop is short lived.

    Sept 24 - A federal judge has ruled that the Federal Trade Commission overstepped its authority in creating the national do-not-call list against telemarketers. The ruling Tuesday came in a lawsuit brought by telemarketers who challenged the list of 50 million people who said they do not want to receive business solicitation calls. The list was to go into effect Oct. 1.

    For the rest of the story CLICK HERE
     
  12. m thaler

    m thaler Guest

    gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    stop is short lived.
    >
    > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    >
    > Geoff.
    >

    This has been discussed many times.
    1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.

    Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.


    ...mike

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  13. William Bray

    William Bray Guest

    There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.

    xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    >
    > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    > stop is short lived.
    > >
    > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    > >
    > > Geoff.
    > >

    > This has been discussed many times.
    > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
    >
    > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
    >
    >
    > ...mike
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  14. dan allen

    dan allen Guest

    Just full of saturated info

    wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
    <vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
    > There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    > computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    > unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    > local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    > themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    > of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    > don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    > interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
    >
    > xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    > <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > >
    > > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    > > stop is short lived.
    > > >
    > > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    > > >
    > > > Geoff.
    > > >

    > > This has been discussed many times.
    > > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    > > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    > > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    > > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    > > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    > > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    > > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    > > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
    > >
    > > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    > > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    > > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    > > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
    > >
    > >
    > > ...mike
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  15. dan allen

    dan allen Guest

    wow I should post my responses on every link too, ..........there just
    saturated with info great work William!

    wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
    <vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
    > There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    > computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    > unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    > local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    > themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    > of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    > don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    > interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
    >
    > xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    > <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > >
    > > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    > > stop is short lived.
    > > >
    > > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    > > >
    > > > Geoff.
    > > >

    > > This has been discussed many times.
    > > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    > > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    > > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    > > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    > > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    > > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    > > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    > > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
    > >
    > > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    > > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    > > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    > > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
    > >
    > >
    > > ...mike
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  16. dan allen

    dan allen Guest

    Oh my Gosh, thats three outstanding!

    wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
    <vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
    > There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    > computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    > unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    > local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    > themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    > of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    > don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    > interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
    >
    > xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    > <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > >
    > > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    > > stop is short lived.
    > > >
    > > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    > > >
    > > > Geoff.
    > > >

    > > This has been discussed many times.
    > > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    > > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    > > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    > > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    > > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    > > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    > > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    > > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
    > >
    > > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    > > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    > > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    > > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
    > >
    > >
    > > ...mike
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  17. dan allen

    dan allen Guest

    you are the most amazing person!

    wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray) wrote in article
    <vn4irh3de8r0c2@corp.supernews.com>:
    > There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    > computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    > unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    > local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    > themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    > of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    > don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    > interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.
    >
    > xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    > <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >
    > >
    > > gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) wrote in article ets hope this
    > > stop is short lived.
    > > >
    > > > All you need to do is to implement a caller pays system like we have
    > > > here in Israel. It makes cellular phones available to everyone and gets
    > > > rid of solicitation calls on them.
    > > >
    > > > Geoff.
    > > >

    > > This has been discussed many times.
    > > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.
    > > 2. As you mentioned, in virtually all countries outside the U.S.
    > > and Canada, the cost of an incoming call to a cel shows up on your land
    > > line bill. What you forgot to mention is that cost is extremely high,
    > > as much as 10 to 20 cents/min. in many countries. In the U.S., cost of
    > > incoming and well as outgoing calls is well under 10 cents/min. for most
    > > people. Many of us pay less than 2 cents/min.!! In addition, most
    > > users in the U.S. have plans that include unlimited nites and weekends.
    > >
    > > Because cel useage is so cheap here, many people have given up land
    > > lines entirely in favor of cel phones. Others of us forward all calls
    > > from home and office to our cel when we are away because of the low
    > > cost. That cost would be virtually prohibitive in most countries.
    > >
    > >
    > > ...mike
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     
  18. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    askme@askme.com (Mark F) wrote in message news:<vn450d8cauee45@corp.supernews.com>...

    > IMHO...There should be no provision for a single judge to overturn such
    > an item like this one. A very large population of the USA has spoken!


    **(Sigh...)** Did you sleep during all those Civics classes?

    The judge(s) who ordered schools to be integrated in the days of
    segregation overturned the will of a "very large population of the USA"
    as well. That's why we have three branches of government- checks
    and balances, remember? I'm certainly not trying to equate civil rights
    and anti-telemarketing laws in importance, but just making the point
    about judicial authority- they interpret the legality of law, they don't
    cowtow to "mob rule".

    There are plenty of remedies if this judge is wrong- appeals, new
    laws, etc.
     
  19. Jer

    Jer Guest

    William Bray wrote:

    > There is just one problem with this notion. Many Tele-markets have
    > computers that generate numbers at random. This way they can get around
    > unlisted numbers. A cell phone number is an unlisted number with the
    > local land line data banks. As several cell phone owners has listed
    > themselves with land line no contact lists this opens up a whole new can
    > of worms. What's a 20 cent call to a hundred dollar sale? What they
    > don't do now will happen unless people get together to protect their
    > interest on this one. How can they do this? It's called a waiver.



    That's not true, even telemarketers that use randomizers are still
    required to filter out non-dialable numbers, ie. cell phones, pagers.
    An unlisted landline number can still be dialed. The only
    telemarketers that use "prescribed lists" (limited dialing scope) are
    dialing for demographic purposes.

    On any given day there could be one or more landline numbers forwarded
    to my cell, and the instant they learn they're talking to me on a cell
    - they're gone, incorrectly assuming they've dialed a cell number
    directly.

    --
    jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' ICQ = 35253273
    "All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
    what we know." -- Richard Wilbur
     
  20. Tech Geek

    Tech Geek Guest

    xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com (m thaler) wrote in article
    <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>:
    > >

    > This has been discussed many times.
    > 1. Phone solicitors can not call cel phones.


    In fact, its against the law, and after the first warning, you can sue
    them for damages or $500, whichever is greater.

    (I have the law printed out at work and give copies to customers who
    complain about telemarketers).

    It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?