| 9:32 pm on Sep 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just think, that if the law is ever declared null and void, that there will be a great builtin list of names for spammers to call.
Personally, I want a button on my phone marked "$.50". Ever time I press it, then the caller is charged .50 cents.
| 9:59 pm on Sep 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yep, since NY started its list I ain't afraid to pick up the phone anymore -- and I didn't have to pay five bucks.
"...the court said that the FTC has authority to curb abusive telemarketing practices under existing law but that any national do-not-call list must be handled by the Federal Communications Commission."
That's just too big of a goof for me to believe is possible. Guess government lawyers at government pay equal not quite close enough for government work.
| 10:03 pm on Sep 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Guess government lawyers at government pay equal |
Don't kid yourself - I have tangled with Justice Department lawyers - some of them are VERY good. I would have more doubts about government judges :)
| 10:17 pm on Sep 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
like i'm really going to sign up on the DMA's no call list, too... no way... why would i want to give them more info about me and my numbers?
what about those organizations that do not belong to the DMA? how do/can they benefit from the DMA's no call list?
and then there's that cry about infringing on the DMA's and telemarketer's "freedom of speech"... all i can say is "talk to the hand! your right to freedom of speech stops at my phone and my privacy."
| 12:58 pm on Sep 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yep, have all the freedom of speech you want... as long as I have my freedom not to listen. ;)
Interesting to see how this ends up, because it certainly won't be dropped here.
| 5:15 pm on Sep 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Although, I hate having to pay for it, Sprint Privacy ID has given me my phone back. Sure, it occasionally confuses people I really do want to talk to, but it's been so worth it. My phone now rings maybe once or twice a day, exactly how I like it.
| 5:18 pm on Sep 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't invest too heavily in demon dialers just yet..
Congress is jumping in [sun-sentinel.com]
| 5:39 pm on Sep 25, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|We should probably call the bill 'This Time We Really Mean It Act' to cure any myopia in the judicial branch. |
Quote of the day!
| 2:38 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now some judge is saying the do-not-call-list is an infringement on freedom of speech. You just can't win.
Who do I call to opt out of the first admendment :)
| 2:51 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 3:00 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Who do I call to opt out of the first admendment :) |
| 3:36 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
an infringement on freedom of speech<<<
Yea, so the telemarketer gets free access of my phone to spread his message.
And the spammer gets free use of my e-mail program to spread his message.
So I guess I get to borrow the mike at my local radio station now.
Or plaster bumper stickers on my neighbors car.
| 4:01 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Those telemarketers are going out kicking and screaming...
An hour after congress overturned the 1st judge, a 2nd judge is holding it up again:
By the way, have you heard what happened to the first judge after he blocked the list? It's too funny:
| 5:42 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"West did please some businesses with his ruling Tuesday. Telemarketers say the list would devastate their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs."
I don't get it. Wouldn't it make sense that the people who don't want the calls wouldn't buy anything anyway? You'd think this would be good for the telemarketing industry - they can focus on those people who actually want to buy useless junk over the phone from total strangers.
| 8:29 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United States and an additional 150 million cell phone numbers. |
It would be far easier and much less work if they designed this as an opt-in list instead of an opt-out one.
| 9:33 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The two main arguments for making the list public are rather laughable...
1. It would violate the first amendment (freedom of speech) to withhold phone numbers / restrict calling to unwithheld numbers.
Rejoin: In the first place, this is a non-sequitor claim; it engages in a fallacy of equivocation; "freedom of speech" is not "disclosure of X resource." It would be the same thing as trying to argue that the government is violating our freedom of speech by withholding classified materials from the public. "Freedom of speech" simply doesn't guarentee any type of right to disclosure, it only guarentees the right to free speech.
Secondly, telephone service is a paid service, and a telephone number is part of this service; thus it should be subject to the same rules and regulations as any other article of commerce.
2. It would be very bad for telemarketing (and other) businesses if the list were withheld.
Rejoin: This claim, taken as fact, only goes to show that such businesses are not legitimate.
Further, the relative state of some business (or industry) does not negate legislation regarding private property or ownership. X car maker might do better if they knew the way Y car maker builds engines, but that would not justify stealing Y's engine specs, nor would it guarentee X any right to disclosure of the specs. Y must be the one to decide if they will disclose the information (and how it may be used if disclosed), irregardless of the state of affairs at X.
| 9:57 am on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
They will have access to all the phone numbers on the list because they have to make sure those aren't called. Many use computers to do the dialing through a sequence of numbers. They need the list so they know which ones to remove.
In the US, freedom of speech has nothing to do with disclosure. It deals solely with our government not being allowed to pass any law that retricts free speech. These guys can talk all they want all day long into their end of the phone, but IMO the first amendment doesn't cover them ringing my phone or anyone else's to listen.
| 1:21 pm on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
When telemarketing ends, it won't end jobs. Everytime you call a company like AOL for customer service, you will notice that you get a little sales pitch at the end and then a quick transfer to another service (well if you are slammed over by an anxious rep). That's the "cendant" sales team and they will attempt to sell you the same junk as telemarketers who cold call. This is a big loophole in the do-not-call list. It doesn't prevent existing services from dumping this junk on you at the end of your customer service call. I bet more and more companies will start to use cendant and similar services now.
| 1:47 pm on Sep 26, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Maybe all those laid off telemarketers could be retrain to provide computer technical support. From the length of the call queue, their is a definite shortage in that area.
| 12:40 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The FCC has responded to all of the confusion and sent out emails and put up a PDF files to "educate" people about this mess.
You can find that info here [fcc.gov].
Doesn't say much, but it's "official."
| 5:45 pm on Oct 1, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am all for the list. I dont see how its in violation of the 1st....at all. People have the right to choose what and who they want calling them.
Every once in a while I will mess with a telemarketer just because I can. My state is getting ready to pass a dont not call list in a month I think and I will be signing up on it when it hits the street.
From what you ladies and gents have posted I agree with and it seems like there is no one that wants to be called by telemarketers. Well I am going back to work now.
| 4:43 am on Oct 2, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Now I hear on the news that they are expecting unemployment numbers (and aid applications) to jump through the roof because of this. I didn't think of that aspect but shouldn't they all have had a real job in the first place? Now they will get government help to bail out the industry? Argh.
Well if this model works, maybe they can make a "do not spam" list. Good luck on the lawsuits (and unemployment aid applications! :) ) on that one!