1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  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!

NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!

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

  1. Phill.

    Phill. Guest

    In article <vn5cnm9b6uqndc@corp.supernews.com>,
    pcsguy@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net (Tech Geek) wrote:

    >
    >
    > 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.


    Its also against the Industry Adopted Consumer Code to have a map that
    does not show where cell service is generally available.



    › See More: NEWS: Courts Block the NO CALL List!!
  2. In article <vn4dqsmuuipia0@corp.supernews.com>, m thaler wrote:

    > 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.


    Here in Israel the rate for calling a cell phone from a landline is very
    high about 30 cents a minute. That's because the phone service used to be
    provided by the Post Office. It has since been privatized, and the company
    that was formed is called BEZEQ, and it is a protected monopoly far
    more than the "Bell System" of old.

    My cell phone is from Orange and outgoing calls costs me about $.12 a
    minute from 6:30 to 21:30 and $.06 after that for any phone in the
    country: landline, cellular, local or long distance. Calls between
    family members are at a 90% discount.

    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.
  3. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:de37a2e0.0309242035.136fa8d3@posting.google.com...
    > 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.



    Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right. We should have a
    right to *ask* that companies not call us, and they should honor that
    request. Segregation was wrong, setting up a list where the public says,
    "Hey, I'd rather not be sold anything over the phone," is not, at least in
    principle.

    You have the freedom of speech in this country. You *don't* have the right
    to force someone to listen to you speak. So, if the FCC overstepped their
    boundaries, we need to find a workaround, because this is obviously
    something the public wants.
  4. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "m thaler" <xmichael.thaler@xmindspring.com> wrote in message
    news: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



    I've had tons of calls on my cell phone from soliciters when I was with
    Sprint. I've had one with ATTWS, trying to get me to use their DSL service.
    And I'm pretty sure the do not call list wouldn't prevent ATT from
    contacting me again if they wanted.
  5. Dohhh!!!

    Dohhh!!! Guest

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


    Yeah, and that law works really well.

    I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
  6. Tech Geek

    Tech Geek Guest

    me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    >
    > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    >
    > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    >


    Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
    don't know about the law.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  7. Bob Smith

    Bob Smith Guest

    "Dohhh!!!" <me@homer.com> wrote in message
    news:6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com...
    > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer

    generated
    > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    >
    > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    >
    > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.


    Seems like quite a few house painters, landscapers, carpet cleaners,
    and real estate agents have been using this tech for quite awhile, as
    I get a lot of those calls during the week as well, and all those
    calls are forwarded to my cell phone. It's to the point now that I
    won't answer any "Unknown" calls showing up on caller ID.

    Bob
  8. Tech Geek

    Tech Geek Guest

    me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    >
    > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    >
    > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    >


    Ready?

    Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227

    "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"

    Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
    machine etc..

    Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
    pre-recorded message

    Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
    from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
    is greater.

    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  9. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Tech Geek" <pcsguy@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:vn66475v41lb69@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >
    > me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    > <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    > > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    > >
    > > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    > >
    > > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    > >

    >
    > Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
    > don't know about the law.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]



    I get them all the time as well. I'll start writing their info down instead
    of just hanging up. We report this to the FCC, right?
  10. Justin

    Justin Guest

    "Tech Geek" <pcsguy@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    news:vn66foebqkh1fa@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >
    > me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    > <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    > > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    > >
    > > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    > >
    > > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    > >

    >
    > Ready?
    >
    > Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227
    >
    > "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"
    >
    > Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
    > machine etc..
    >
    > Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
    > pre-recorded message
    >
    > Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
    > from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
    > is greater.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]




    That's nuts! Do you know how many faxes we get per day?
  11. VZW Guy

    VZW Guy Guest

    There is a loophool in those rules.. If you are a current customer of
    the company in question, they have all right to telemarket you. That is
    the one thing abou tthe Do not call list. If you are a Sprint PCS
    customer, Then Sprint can still try to call you to get you to sign up
    for LD or wutever.

    --
    Statements made by me are of my opinion and knowledge, and do not
    express those by Verizon Wireless(R).
    Any information I give is subject to change without notice, and may not
    be completely accurate.


    pcsguy@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net (Tech Geek) wrote in article
    <vn66foebqkh1fa@corp.supernews.com>:
    >
    >
    > me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    > <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer generated
    > > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.

    > >
    > > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    > >
    > > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    > >

    >
    > Ready?
    >
    > Title 47 - Chapter 5 - Subchapter II - Part I - Sec. 227
    >
    > "Restrictiions on use of telephone equipment"
    >
    > Part b.1.A.iii states its illegal to phone solicit on a cel phone / fax
    > machine etc..
    >
    > Part b.1.B states it is illegal to use an artifical voice or
    > pre-recorded message
    >
    > Part b.3.B states that you have the private right of action to recover
    > from the actual monetary loss OR $500 from such a violation, whichever
    > is greater.
    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  12. On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:16:46 +0000 (UTC), gsm@mendelson.com (Geoffrey
    S. Mendelson) wrote:

    >Here in Israel the rate for calling a cell phone from a landline is very
    >high about 30 cents a minute. That's because the phone service used to be
    >provided by the Post Office. It has since been privatized, and the company
    >that was formed is called BEZEQ, and it is a protected monopoly far
    >more than the "Bell System" of old.


    The reason it is high is that is the way caller pays mobile works.
    It's the same way in Europe and everywhere else that you have caller
    pays. It has nothing to do with Bezeq and has everything to do with
    the tariff that the mobile companies have agreed on for land line
    callers. It costs me more to call an Israeli mobile number. A
    regular number only costs me $.11/minute whereas a call to an Orange,
    Cellcom or Pelephone number costs me $.25 per minute from the US.
    It's the tariff that the mobile companies imposed on the land line
    companies.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To send an email reply send to
    GSMthemobilestandard (@) yahoo.com
  13. William Bray

    William Bray Guest

    Dan, Thanks, but your tripping.

    As for the law- what does that matter? If no one files a complaint no
    law has been violated. Do you have any idea how much it cost a family
    to file a claim in court? Did they record the phone call? (That's
    illegal too unless you take the time to tell the person you are going
    to.) What proof do they have that that person even works for that
    outfit? What contact number can they call back on? Have you ever tried
    calling a Tele-Marketer back on the phone number you got? No, because
    it's usually unlisted or bared from incoming calls. The law is
    meaningless when it be gotten around or or wavered. And yes, once the
    sales man has already done business with you- tough shit!
    Tele-marketing is a special interest business that has been getting
    support from congress and the Federal courts for years. It was only
    standard procedure when that idiot judge recently voted in their favor.


    Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in article
    <bktsob$pqu@library1.airnews.net>:
    > 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
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]
  14. Cyrus Afzali

    Cyrus Afzali Guest

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 22:52:28 -0000, wmbray@hotmail.com (William Bray)
    wrote:

    >Dan, Thanks, but your tripping.
    >
    >As for the law- what does that matter? If no one files a complaint no
    >law has been violated. Do you have any idea how much it cost a family
    >to file a claim in court? Did they record the phone call? (That's
    >illegal too unless you take the time to tell the person you are going
    >to.) What proof do they have that that person even works for that
    >outfit? What contact number can they call back on? Have you ever tried
    >calling a Tele-Marketer back on the phone number you got? No, because
    >it's usually unlisted or bared from incoming calls. The law is
    >meaningless when it be gotten around or or wavered. And yes, once the
    >sales man has already done business with you- tough shit!
    >Tele-marketing is a special interest business that has been getting
    >support from congress and the Federal courts for years. It was only
    >standard procedure when that idiot judge recently voted in their favor.


    Not true. The claims would be handled by the FTC, so you don't have to
    go to court to get redress on an individual level. I routinely file
    complaints with NYS officials over our do-not-call list violations and
    it's a totally online procedure.
  15. Carl.

    Carl. Guest

    "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> wrote in message
    news:0d250e4df9aa635b3ffe35b67d8c2815@news.teranews.com...
    >
    > "Tech Geek" <pcsguy@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
    > news:vn66475v41lb69@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > >
    > > me@homer.com(Dohhh!!!) wrote in article
    > > <6756nvg8get625no92na9oumbdrj8tcp08@4ax.com>:
    > > > >It is also against the law to use a pre-recorded or computer

    generated
    > > > >voice message to sell a product and/or service.
    > > >
    > > > Yeah, and that law works really well.
    > > >
    > > > I get 3 or 4 calls a week from devices exactly like that.
    > > >

    > >
    > > Find out who it is and press charges. These companies are hoping people
    > > don't know about the law.
    > >
    > > [posted via phonescoop.com]

    >
    >
    > I get them all the time as well. I'll start writing their info down

    instead
    > of just hanging up. We report this to the FCC, right?


    Yup. Online complaint forms, it's pretty convenient.


    ---
    Update your PC at http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003
  16. Todd Allcock

    Todd Allcock Guest

    Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bkt983$see@library1.airnews.net>...

    > 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.


    This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
    gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
    the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
    FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
    FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
    to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
    the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
    created.

    Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.

    ....and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
    organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
    with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
    of us during dinner. ;-)

    Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
    no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
    right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
    without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
    given their lists to the FTC.)
  17. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> posted
    in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.


    No, it's not. That's mob rule.

    But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
    They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
    being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
    right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
    demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
    demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
    but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
    lines to call.
  18. Justin Green

    Justin Green Guest

    "Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.org> wrote in message
    news:pd77nvkvdkasn3v7ren8q88ulq2dv3151h@Pern.rk...
    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> posted
    > in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    > >Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.

    >
    > No, it's not. That's mob rule.
    >
    > But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
    > They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
    > being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
    > right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
    > demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
    > demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
    > but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
    > lines to call.



    I said in this case, as opposed to segregation that was mentioned in the
    ealier post. I agree, mob rule often results in bad choices, such as the
    choice to sterlize mentally retarded people (used to be common in some
    states and legal in Utah until the 70's).
  19. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Al Klein wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:20:10 GMT, "Justin" <justin@cjteam.com> posted
    > in alt.cellular.verizon:
    >
    >
    >>Well, in this case, the *will* of the people is right.

    >
    >
    > No, it's not. That's mob rule.
    >
    > But the telemarketers' free speech rights aren't being trampled on.
    > They can speak all they want. Their "right" to an audience is what's
    > being curtailed, and the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the
    > right to be heard (as you said further down). What they're doing -
    > demanding to be heard on my phone - is the same as if they were
    > demanding to be driven in my car. They have the right to get there,
    > but not with the means that *I* own. Let them buy their own phone
    > lines to call.



    Oh, here we go again.... business hiding behind the free speech
    mantra? What a crock! Free speech was intended for individuals, not
    commercial enterprises. I've never believed business HAD a
    constitutional right to free speech.

    --
    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. Jer

    Jer Guest

    Todd Allcock wrote:

    > Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message news:<bkt983$see@library1.airnews.net>...
    >
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > This is why the judge's ruling was technically correct- Congress
    > gave the FCC jurisdiction over telemarking a decade ago, including
    > the power to create a do not call registry. They never did. The
    > FTC (not FCC!) picked up the ball and did it instead because the
    > FCC never bothered. The judge ruled the FTC lacked the authority
    > to do so, so now Congress is scrambling to pass a new law giving
    > the FTC the power to do create the registry they've already
    > created.
    >
    > Don't panic- the registry will be in place and in effect on Oct.1.
    >
    > ...and you'll still get telemarketed! Beween "charitable
    > organizations" and companies you have pre-existing relations
    > with, I suspect there's still enough TM biz out there to bug all
    > of us during dinner. ;-)


    Truth is, I don't answer the phone during dinner - ever. I also don't
    answer calls from any number I don't know - ever. Yes, it would be
    better to not have the phone ring and me not look at the CID display
    to see if I know who's calling. CID and voice mail exists for a reason.

    >
    > Besides, over half of the states in the US already have
    > no-call registries, so most of you should already be on a list,
    > right? The national registry just catches the 20 or so states
    > without such a list. (The 30 with a DNC registry have already
    > given their lists to the FTC.)



    --
    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

Welcome to VerizonForums!

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


Forgot your password?