Slashdot Mirror
FCC Allows Bells to Sell Your Telephone Usage Data
Devistater writes "Spotted on hardocp. The FCC said in a ruling yesterday that telephone companies can sell your name, who you call, and for how long you talk to anyone who is an "affiliate." No longer is this required to be an opt in marketing approach, now its OPT OUT. Sounds like spam is coming to the telephone world, and what an egregious breach of privacy. Article on PCWorld has some of the details." There's also a short Reuters story and a good one on ecommercetimes.com.
"Hello, this is Pat Robertson, I am calling to tell you that you're a sinner and condemned to burn in hell because you called 1-900-SPANK-ME and talked for 12 hours. Oh, we're also telling your boss, and reporting it to the credit agencies"
This means that now all any government agency needs to do is set up a dummy corporation that's an "affiliate", and my phone company will give them unlimited access to all the data about me.
Ya gotta admit, it's a neat end run around the laws that restrict government surveillance.
Oh, well, I suppose as a known computer programmer, I'm already on all the lists of suspected terrorists.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The Bells would love for you to be on tons of those obnoxious calling lists. Not only do they make money from selling your name and phone number, I'm sure it also increases their rate of sales for those extra options to block telemarketers. Sounds like a win-win for the bells.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Better opt out right away . . . anybody know how?
how much are they expecting to charge me now to "opt out" of this? I already pay a couple of bucks a month for the "privilege" of having an unlisted number.
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
Hello Mr Smith, I'm calling today to tell you that we noticed that you are making quite a few calls to 555-555-5555. We further wish to tell you that we believe that these calls are related to you having an extramarital affair.
We are bringing you this service to offer you a chance to keep us quiet with a one time payment of $500. Not only will you get piece of mind ( for now ) that we won't tell your wife but you'll also get a handy cookbook from Martha Stewart.
If you don't wish to have your marriage ruined please stay on the line while I transfer this call to an independent verifier
Have a good day!
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
I can't believe he thinks anyone will buy this aas anything but a cop out to corporate "donations". Too bad no one gives a damn.
argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...
----rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Do what I do... pick up the phone, wait for the telemarketer and simply interrupt them right away by saying NO! and hang up.
Yes it's an interruption but get over it. and if more people would actually say NO then telemarketing would not happen (it would cease to work as a selling medium)
Yes it sucks to get marketing calls, but screw it. it isnt worth getting your panties all in a buch over.. Or simply have the phone company block all calls that have caller id blocked.. works great. and stops ony a very few of my relatives.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Well, yes and no.
1) You have to decide if their violating your privacy constitutes harming you. I think it does. So, just like drug makers can't sell you poison (doing you harm,) the phone company can't sell your phone records to people who want information on you. The harm is, I will grant, less severe, but it is still harm.
2) The guv'mint provides a regulatory backdrop that makes the telephone system possible. The system was built by Bell, originally, but with government help. If there were really more than one system - if, say, Sprint and AT&T customers could not call each other - than you might expect less guarantees about their behavior. As it is, they are selling access to the single, public, telephone network. They should not be in a position to dictate the terms under which that network can be accessed.
3) In the past, your phone records have been more-or-less private. This is a PRECEDENT. Precedent is more powerful than logic; if you engage in an illogical business practice long enough that people expect you to do it, you can't stop. Unfortunately, this principle has no force of written law, but as a practical guideline it pops up all the time.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
--------> Michael Copps
I win!
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I would hate to think of the that anytime you purchase a good or service, that your personal information will be sold to spam houses.
The whole concept of advertising right now is getting absolutely ridiculous. It seems now that the onus is on us as consumers to pay attention to all advertisments, rather than the advertising to attract us by being clever, funny what have you. Simply by being a possible consumer, the advertiser somehow got the right to harrass me.
What's the point of having a telephone, if I am going to be getting the ringing equivalent of pop-up windows? It's bad enough with telemarketers.
Screw it, if any one needs to reach me, send me a damn letter (email's worse!), if its important enough for me to know it can wait a week sheesh...
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the kind of information that you needed a warrant to get? How can something that was considered private enough to require a judge's approval now be sold to the highest bidder. I seriously hope that this is not as bad as it sounds. I'm holding off writing my representatives until I see if this is real and if it really says what we're hearing. If the news is as bad as this sounds, WRITE YOUR REPRESNTATIVE!!! Don't let this action go unchallenged.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
It is NOT a free speech issue to tell other divisions, "partners", or anyone at all for that matter who I call. I don't think this you can find a better example of violating a person's right to privacy (4th Amendment) than to sell or otherwise disseminate details about a person's personal phone calls (date, time, number, duration).
This is a clear example of corporate takeover of government. Citizens - you're doing it to yourselves. Take political action; you don't have to quit your job. Just take a few minutes one day a week to contact your representatives to gripe and organize locally, whether you're an independent, a Green, a Republicrat or a Demopublican.
New York 'No Call' Registry.
I believe there are similar registries for other states. Every quarter, the registry is published and all non-exempt telemarketers must *not* call you if you appear in the registry under penalty of law. Getting in the registry is free and can be done from the above website, if you are a NY resident. Other posters can probably give URL's or addresses for other state registries.
-Andrew
God I hate anyone who says if you dont like something just don't buy it. That works for pizzas (man you'll never see me eat at a Papa Johns) but not GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MONOPOLIES like telephone services.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
The text of the FCC ruling claims that this opt-out thing was done to balance the "first amendment rights" of the carriers. What about my rights not to be marketed at constantly?
Oh, wait, sorry, my mistake. That right's not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, I must not deserve it.
I'm not a person, I'm but a lowly consumer. I exist to fuel other people's economy. I should just shut up and consume.
We must remember the First Amendment which protects any shrill jackass no matter how self-seeking.
-- F. G. Withington
Here's how I opt out... I don't HAVE a landline. I have a cell phone, and a broadband connections (cable). That's it.
Until cell phones become 24/7 unlimited flat rate, I don't see the FCC being able to get away with allowing this there.
Corporatism != Free Market
It is time to upgrade our technology again.
I've heard good things about the "Two cans and a piece of String" company based in Florida. Perhaps the solution is right there?
With my dying breath, I curse Zoidberg!
Powell Michael K CM-CH (202) 418-1000
This sucks for one main reason. As soon as that info is sold, there is no getting it 'back'. It will be resold, repackaged, sorted, sold, crosslinked, sold, and sold again. This info does not belong in the hands of companies who "do buisiness" with a telecom company.
With that, here are the other post headers.
First Post
FROst PisT In other news
Imagine the privacy concerns
No way in hell!
BOYCOTT TELEPHONES NOW
I don't Care, I use VOIP
They can have my Pizza numbers if they want
Workarounds?
OT: your sig
What we really need
Solution is Simple: use the TeleGRAPH!
Idiots should not be allowed computers
What are they going to do with this? Eschelon and you
Use a repeater node and bannana peel
Wireless Networks?
My uncle works for AT&T
TIme to Move to Canada
What do you Expect?
Micro$oft and Telecoms
I did this...
and finally...
In this day and age.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
'nuff said.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
For those who have Qwest, look here.
Hello.
You have reached (555)555-1212.
I use this machine to screen my calls and
I may or may not be at home and
there may or may not be a recording device attached
so at the tone clearly say your name, your phone number and very, very brief message.
Then, if I'm home, I'll have a decision to make.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Does anyone know if this includes cell phone providers?
I mean seriously, I'm paying about the same price for a completly mobile phone, that includes long distance calls, works damn near anywhere in the US (Sprint PCS) and NO sales calls! Use your dollars to tell the phone companies to screw off!
--Should work--
This isn't some random website or company we're talking about - it's the PHONE COMPANY. It's extremely difficult to do ANYTHING in modern society without a phone - you can, of course, but it locks you out from a huge portion of society. Lack of running water or electricity is less of an inconvenience. And it's not like you have a whole lot of options to take your money elsewhere - you have no choice of local carrier, and the LD carriers will all have the same policy.
i'm so sick of all you sanctimonious fucks saying 'well boycott it then'. HOW THE HELL are you going to boycott phones? oh, wait a minute..... let me guess, nobody calls you anyway, right? you cannot boycott phones.
let me make this clear. your boycott of the RIAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the MPAA did NOTHING. your boycott of the phone companies will do NOTHING. deal with it.
Telco's are only allowed to 'share' (sell) that info with affiliates.
This really is no big deal, telcos have been selling your personal information and anything else they could make to anyone and everyone willing to pay for years.
You don't really believe their "privacy policy" do you? :)
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
I found out that a good way to defeat the computers that do automatic dialing is to place the tone for a wrong/disconnected number at the beginning of your answering machine message, followed by a second or 2 of silence, and then your real message. Then set the number of rings to like 1 or 2. This way the machine hears the tones for a wrong number and immediately hangs up, whereas everyone else is slow compared to a computer and will hear your message just as they are thinking they might have a wrong number. It might be a little confusing for some people at first, but after you explain it to a few people everyone should understand what you're trying to do.
Just always remember that it's better to use their own system against them, then to just sit there and take it up the a$$.
Rob
Tissue paper companies.
Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Customer Service Standards:
Send your comments to:OMDCSSTF@fcc.gov
General e-mail should be sent to: FCCINFO@FCC.GOV
Remember: a complaint should be a well thoughtout, polite, disagreement NOT a psychotic rant.
I hate the ending of the article:
As a related matter, the FCC is currently seeking industry comment on the use of information about customers whose telecommunications carriers have gone out of business or have filed for bankruptcy protection.
If it follows rulings similar to dot.coms, then those records are assets and will be sold to the highest bidder to pay debts. Ouch!
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
South Carolina has phones?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
And this is why I like Quebec. Quebec has privacy rules identical to Europe. While it is painful for somethings, it is in moments like this I say.
;)
Vive l'Quebec libre....
And since I also live part of the time in Switzerland, which also has strict privacy laws the result is that I get very little spam.
As a sidenote in Switzerland to tempt you to use their products companies give away full products. IE at Christmas time I always get a full Lindt Christmas flavour chocolate bar. Yum....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
There really is no problem with treating corporations like people. Let them have full legal rights like people. BUT also give them a limited lifespan, like people. A couple hundred years ago, corporations were typically chartered for a limited time only, to prevent exactly the kinds of problems we have now. The Dutch East India company was chartered to further a specific social goal, and then dissolved. Corporate personhood only becomes dangerous when combined with IMMORTALITY. Think about it, a person making umpteen billion dollars a year (cough, cough, Bill Gates) has a lot of power - but now imagine an IMMORTAL Bill Gates - well that's what we have with corporations. We'll never be able to re-institute limited lifespans being built into corporate charters. But we might be able to get corporate charters dissolved when the corporations are shown to have violated the law. I think the climate now is right for such a move, though there's nobody in government to sponsor such an idea.
But sometimes it's better to have a little fun with them if you've got time to waste. If someone calls and asks to speak to the head of the household, there are a number of ways to dispose of the obvious telemarketer. My favorite: wait for them to stop speaking, then say the following in a clear, confident voice:
"Anteeksi, mutta emme puhu englantia ta:ma:ssa talossa."
That's Finnish, or my best approximation of it, for "I'm sorry, but we don't speak English in this house" - I think it's correct if you replace "a:" with an "a" with a dieresis over it, pronounce those vowels like the "a" in "hat", and pronounce the other letters as you would in, say, Spanish. And even if it's slightly wrong, how many USian telemarketers are going to speak _that_ language, anyway (especially compared to Spanish, for example)? Wait for an awkward silence, let them hang up when they realize they probably won't be getting anything out of you, and then see if they call back.
Agreed. I'm reminded of that classic SNL sketch "We're the PHONE company, we don't have to care."
Free market zealots crack me up, because their philosophy is based on the mistaken idea that free markets even exist.
In the ideal free market, I want to do task X, company A produces widget A to do task X, company B produces widget B to do task X, company C etc. etc. etc. If one company bothers me, overcharges me, abuses my privacy etc. I just take my business elsewhere. This is a fine model for TVs, cars, etc. etc. but there are many sectors of the economy where this is an entirely false model.
As a most eggregious example, take the California energy crisis. People (or perhaps, if you're bitter politicians paid off by energy companies) were fed up with the innefficiency of the California public utilities. So they privatized the whole thing. Theoretically this was supposed to create a handful of competing companies all trying to undercut each other to provide service X (here, electricity) to as many people as possible. This didn't happen. They got together and fixed prices and engineered a shortage to create demand. Blackouts started, and people's power bills went up. Enron had a big hand in this. Someone tell me, at any point in that company's entire history did they do anything that helped anyone other than a small group of principle shareholders?
The record industry works in the same way. Label A and label B don't compete with each other for customers. They have carefully carved out territories and their prices are fixed by a trade organization (RIAA)
I used to really believe in total free-market capitalism, it's a beautiful theory. But like communism, it fails miserably in practice. You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation. Unfortunately, we don't have that. We have a strong government that is more often than not, working to HELP the price fixers and tycoons. There are times when I think our current system is actually worse than total deregulation.
Wow... that went on for too long.
Anyway, back to phone companies. These are companies operating in a government sanctioned monopoly (as the parent post mentioned) in such situations, I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability. Wheras in a monopoly, people have no option other than to do without a needed public service. We should have had nationalized railroads years ago, as well, but the democratic party was too addicted to the money that labor unions gave them to support trucks on interstates to bother with it.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
My subject pretty much sums it up.
/. community, _any_ kind of advertisement is Spam. Banners over the jumbo-tron? Spam. Pop-up ads on websites you're viewing for free? Spam. Ads for travel insurance in your credit card bill? Spam.
It used to be that spam (in the internet sense) was about email-based advertising that got sent you numerous times by someone you'd never heard of. They got your address by dictionary attacking with phone book names, or spidering the web for people who left addresses lying around.
Generally, it was porno, which upset people even more.
Currently, if you were to believe the
The fact that we are bombarded with ads in a supply-side economy DOES NOT mean that every advertisement is SPAM.
In fact, with data-mining and the vast info-trail people leave behind them, i hope that in a world of advertising, newer campaigns will at least be directed at me when there's a good chance I'll be interested.
The FCC is allowing telemarketers to call cell phones.
Best Slashdot Co
The other day I received new checks in the mail. Well I wrote a few checks, paid a few bills, and as I was flipping to the next check I was surprised to see an ad from a pen retail company! The company was not the same as the check printers (I checked) but apparently has struck an ad deal that places check sized slips with their pens and company info in my checkbook. Aren't there some places where ads just don't belong?
~ now you know
Were you born yesterday? They won't publicize this at all. The average consumer will be lucky to find it in the six pages of crap that gets stuffed into their phone bill. And if they do find something that looks a little odd, they won't know what it means because of the obtuse language these announcements employ.
You mean like the people who were signed up with that major ISP who opted out only to find that the ISP had changed the policy and automatically opted everyone back in again? And without informing their customers? How many affiliates received their email addresses (and God knows what else) before they found out that their opt-out had been changed without notification?
You must not have a job or a life if you have the time to visit the web site of every company that you do business with to check up on the privacy policies and ensure that you haven't been opted back in. How often should I check? Daily? And how many people will get your private info when the policy changes five minutes after you've opted out again.
If someone tells a company that they don't want their information sold or revealed, that should be it. Consumers should not have to play this little game of ``How about now? No? OK. ... pause ... OK, how about now? No? ... pause ... OK, then how about now?''
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
There are companies out that purchase every mailing list possible. No, they're not spammers, they're collating all of these mailing lists into a huge psych database, keyed against your name. In addition to every magazine subscription you've ever had, they can tie it against voter records, DMV records, credit reports, ad naseum. Some of them even key to usenet postings.
This is mostly used by investigators/perverts to determine gobs of information about someone just by typing in their name and paying $5. The fact that phone companies will now start sharing detailed information about their customers means that these profiles are just going to become THAT much more detailed.
Hooray for information!
What on earth makes you think the mobile phone companies are not going do the same thing?
Speak truth to power.
And, on a side note, if you ever want to live in the REAL world, and not the one you made up in polisci classes, you're welcome to come and hang out.
The more spam I get, the more likely I am to cancel my land-line phone system entirely. It's another $20/month (and then some) that I really don't need to spend, since *I* don't use it much.
The phone company is in the same boat as the post office... they're both antiquated services that are in the process of being replaced by both the internet and cell-phones. They should be doing things to ENTICE more users, not anger them and drive them away.
Hey, wake up Ma Bell, you *DO* have to care nowadays!
From pc world "Uncapher calls the decision a positive step. He likens it to customers being willing for Amazon.com to know which books they have purchased, and recommending others." So does this mean I'll be getting calls like "Hello. Based on your previous phone calls, you might enjoy calling the following people..."?
we can rebuild this sig. we have the technology
... so the FCC won't let me be, or let me be me, so let me see. They want to sell phone records monthly, and use it to get themselves wealthy. Hey, here's a concept that works, trash the little guys rights and profits emerge, but no matter how many rights are taken from me, it'd be so empty without being free.
And as long as we're talking about telcos and ways to express our opinions of them, I'd say you have a gift for understatement.
obviously you've never met my wife.
The FCC is long overdue for some serious reform, and I doubt that it will get it. The FCC, in my opinion, is a microcosm of many of the things that are wrong about our present government: namely, that it can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
The FCC is supposed to administer the use of the electromagnetic spectrum (which is no more someone's property than gravity) for the common good of our nation. Instead, it sells wholesale the use of this precious resource to the people with the most money, leaving less and less available for the common person, much less the HAM radio operator or casual experimenter.
It is therefore no surprise that they are taking money from anyone that has an agenda. In this latest case, phone companies and others that want to invade your privacy for the purpose of saturating your every nook and cranny with commercial advertizing.
My proposed solution is that the FCC executive board be made up of at least 50% volunteer personnel (read $0 pay) and that they are not allowed to receive money from ANY source other than the national budget as approved by Congress and the White House. Will that solve the problem? No, but it might put a damper on it.
Now, leave me alone. I have to go patent my coin-operated gravity dispenser.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's cheap enough to have a cell phone as your primary phone, and I believe there's laws prohibiting sales calls to cell phones, since the recipient is charged for the call in many cases.
At any rate, I get very few calls on my cell phone, and once I tell them it's a cell phone they actually VOLUNTEER to put me on their do not call list.
I am serious. But let's do it legally; we can start with a constitutional amendment allowing petition based public-initiated referendums in all states. That would allow us to generate and hopefully pass laws and vote on them at the polls. Then, we pass a law that allows us to take confidence votes on elected and appointed officials. There could several options for a poor vote of confidence: for example, if the official (e.g., the President) receives a confidence vote of less than 40%--fire him; if less than 30%, imprison him 1 year; These people are our servants; let's start acting like it. This sort of control by the people has a long and distinguished history. You ever hear of the phrase, "Let them eat cake"?
We can also start by taking control of our airwaves, and setting aside a significant portion of time to free political speech, some of which may be randomly donated by lottery.
That is all....
------------
Cryonics: Gateway to the Future?
http://www.cryonet.org
cryonics: gateway to the future? www.cryonet.org
When signing up for spam-friendly service (Hotmail is the only one that comes to mind right away), submit your real name -- but enter the rest of the information (address, phone #, etc) of your local congressman. Let them pay for the crimes you'd otherwise be suffering -- no, it won't stop you from receiving e-spam, but it will send all snail mail spam and now phone spam to those guys instead. They're in the position to change things, so let them see the folly of their ways!
Taken from Chairman Powell's public statement:
"But we conclude, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that under the court's constitutional analysis, companies may satisfy the somewhat less stringent requirement of giving consumers the chance to "opt-out" of intracompany communications-related use of CPNI.(1)
(1) The court instructed the Commission to consider an opt-out strategy, which the court concluded was "an obvious and substantially less restrictive alternative" to opt-in. U.S. West v. FCC, 182 F.3d 1224, 1238 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied 530 U.S. 1213 (2000)"
Contact the Court of Appeals and complain. Also, contact your local representative.
-Lucas
Every call they make to me is money they waste. Every second I stay on the line and let them talk is money they waste. The more telemarketers that call me, the more money they are collectively wasting.
Bring it on! I'm sitting at the computer desk playing quake, no reason I can't take calls and say "uh-huh" and "can you explain that again?" a few times.
As for my privacy... well, I think I'll start wardialing telemarketers in the evenings. That should really screw up my calling profile, and entice more telemarketers to call and waste even more time and money on me. Ah, feel the power!
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
You mean like:
- You may have already won $10,000 !!!
- You have been Pre-Approved for a credit card
- You have won a small island in the South Pacific, call 900-SUCKERZ to claim your prize. Hurry!
- Here is a book of coupons for shit you will never buy.
- Please donate to some organization you have never heard of before.
- Get 500 CDs for the price of 1 (plus shipping, handling, and handing over your soul)
- Dear (last person who lived at this address) you have been Pre-approved for a credit card!
- Are the bills getting you down? Debt consolidation can help.
- A special offer just for you Homer J Simpsoy.
- Limited Time Offer!
- We can beat your insurance rates, and save you money $$$$.
- Dated material, open immediately!
- Postal Carrier, do not forward. This is a fantastic prize intended only for the recipient shown below.
- Here is a check for $5000. By endorsing it you agree to open an account with us for that amount, with 27% interest. (this is a real one I got)
- Dell Catalogs
- Victoria's Secret catalogs (OK, I don't mind those)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Real people who knowingly, and willingly engage in a profession which consists entirely of annoying and scamming people. They became fair targets when they accepted the job.
Ever notice that few people would actually engage in the tactics that telemarketers use in a face-to-face situation? Ever notice that if somebody used those tactics, you'd probably end up telling them to sod off and you certainly wouldn't make a purchase from them? Something about talking over the phone makes it easier for them to ignore the fact that they're disrupting peoples lives, and they could at the very least just hang up when the person politely expresses that they have no interest in the product/service.
a prepaid wireless phone. Of course its usage is
more expensive than a traditional land line phone,
but you never have to tell your name or address.
Also, since in the U.S. an invidual under 18 cannot
be legally bound to a contract, the prepaid service
is the only one available for teenagers, short of
having their parents sign up for a postpaid service
on their behalf.
The problem is that they're a government-sponsored monopoly. You can't create an alternate service. It's like the USPS selling info on who you mail letters to, when, and how thick they feel. There's no alternate to the government mandated provider.
funny munging
You do need to add to the account every 90 days (minimum card is $20 -- that's only $7/month) and you must make a call once a month for the phone to remain active.
The largest card is $100 -- 400 minutes, or $0.25/minute. Yeah it may sound high, but that includes long distance (ever overseas to many countries) and taxes/fees. I love it.
For the price of a bare-bones landline and a minimal cell phone, we come out ahead with the prepay.
Method of processing duck feet
The U.S. "Federal Communications Commission" (FCC) set forth new rules this week on how telecommunications carriers can share certain customer information, giving telecom-related service providers a faster track to consumer data.
Carriers can share caller information with affiliates or third-party agents that provide communications-related services using an "opt-out" approach, the FCC said. The policy means that consumers' information will be shared unless they opt-out when receiving a notice of the carrier's intent to share their information.
However, when a carrier wishes to share customer information with an unrelated third party or affiliate that does not provide telecommunication-related services, the carrier must adopt an "opt-in" approach, which requires consumers to provide their consent, the FCC said.
The rules govern what the FCC calls "customer proprietary network information" (CPNI), which includes information on what services consumers subscribe to and to whom and where they call.
Up until 1999, the FCC held an opt-in policy for the sharing of all CPNI by carriers. However, these rules were vacated when a Tenth Circuit appeals court ruled in favor of U.S. West, which had filed suit claiming a "First Amendment" right to share the information under an opt-out approach.
Since then, the rules have been in a "state of play," an FCC spokesman said, with all information being shared under an opt-out approach.
Privacy advocates are taking a wait-and-see approach to the new guidelines, saying will lie in how carriers go about informing consumers of their sharing practices.
"The test is going to be whether the opt-out option is easily available and exercised," said Paula Bruening, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT").
Technology News Headlines from Reuters UK - FCC OKs Sharing of Phone Company Customer Data.Telephone companies will be allowed to share, without consent, private customer data with affiliates that offer communications-related services, under rules adopted by the "Federal Communications Commission" on Tuesday.
Consumers will have to opt out of having their information used for marketing purposes, including where, when and to whom they place calls, as well as the types of services subscribers use and how frequently they use them.
The FCC left the door open for companies to use an opt-in approach if they so choose, but the agency refused to mandate that method.
However, the agency said consumers must approve when a telephone company wants to share their private information with unrelated third parties or affiliated companies that do not provide communications-related services.
The decision drew a sharp rebuke from the lone Democrat on the panel, who argued that companies would be allowed to sell information without customer consent to the highest bidder who has just the faintest association with providing telecommunications services.
PCWorld.com - Telco Customer Data Goes Up for Grabs."FCC"'s contentious ruling gives 'affiliated' parties default access to customer data, requires opt-in for others.
Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says.
Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission.
When it comes to sharing customer data with unaffiliated third parties, the default is reversed under the FCC's new rule. Telecom companies must get the consumers' express consent to "opt in," the FCC says.Advertisement
The decision, announced Tuesday by a somewhat divided FCC, has roiled privacy advocates who say data could be used for consumer profiling by companies with only weak links to the phone carriers.
"Everyone should understand that this decision is neither narrow or pro-privacy," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, who dissented in part with the decision over privacy concerns.
The unclear definition of "corporate affiliates" that can access customer data invites abuse, Copps says. Consumers might find their phone companies "selling to the highest bidder personal and detailed information...as long as these companies use it for some 'communications-related' purpose and have some undefined murky affiliation," he says.
Privacy advocates expressed similar concerns.
"Corporate families are pretty big. I don't know [that] customers feel as familial about the relationship as corporations," says Mikal Condon, staff counsel at the "Electronic Privacy Information Center".
[ ... ]
However, Condon says the court ruling will likely be used as precedent in the states, discouraging any change from the FCC's new rule. States are "pretty much guaranteed litigation" if they require consumer consent, she says.
Legislation introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) would require consumer consent in all cases. However, the measure, Senate Bill 1928, but it does appear to have enough support to pass, Condon says.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
What's the point of having a telephone, if I am going to be getting the ringing equivalent of pop-up windows? It's bad enough with telemarketers.
Exactly. So perhaps you get a cell phone instead. But guess what -- once that market is past its growth phase, you can be sure there will be mass marketing there too. To wit, the idea is out there to have targeted advertising on graphics capable cell phones (e.g., You are only 0.2 miles from McDonald's - come try our chicken sandwich at the cell phone special of $1.99).
I say, in a way, all the better. It will help people like us to toughen up against all this marketing crapola.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
http://www.dominospizza.com Works just fine for me. I don't have to wait on hold forever and the pizza gets here in the same time. Real sweet huh?
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
Before screaming loudly at FCC, read the ruling. Specifically the part which says
Today's FCC action is consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 1999, which vacated the FCC's the opt-in approach for a carrier to use, disclose, or permit access to CPNI.
In other words, FCC said it must be opt-in, and the appeals court said NO.
So bitch at the Tenth Circuit judges, not at FCC.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
call 1-866-483-3385
the recording goes through the legal details of it, but basically all you need is your account number (upper right of your phone bill) to opt out. and (if for some reason you want to), you have the choice of opting back in.
enjoy.
Somewhere on this page I have hidden my signature.
Write down the names of people you speak with (first and last names) and share them with your friends or post them in your "Blog" with the encouragement to do as you have. Since they are working for a public company and answering the phones as a representative of a public company, they should have no expectation of privacy (snicker, snicker). Check your state laws on one party telephone recording laws and if legal, start recording your calls and post them on the web. And always remember, nothing pisses someone off more than someone else calming asking a question, over and over and over. You will get a few zingers from the "Bell" employee after a while. Great stuff for the web!
This method would be effective because, 1) you will cause the "Bell" to waste "human resources" with people calling about the same problem that cannot be satisfied by any answer besides "We are ending this practise", 2) publicly announcing the names of people that are a part of practise will bring about public scorn and 3) if you start bothering the higher level supervisors with your complaints, it will begin to interrupt their time at work doing "important work" such as surfing pr0n, playing solitaire, etc. In my experience with corporations, once you start disrupting the ability of high level management to waste time, things change.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
>I used to really believe in total free-market capitalism
I suspect you and a lot of others are missing the point here, though you've eventually come to the right conclusion.
People are not capitalists, the collective is. Capitalism is not based on people believing in it, it's based on people being greedy. Government oversight is *necessary at the theoretical level* for capitalism because the participants need not believe in it, and the most successful participants generally don't. Pretty much every successful business' goal is to corner the market and sit back collecting money. No business has as its long-term goal to engage in continuous cutthroat competition with its peers. No business has as its long-term goal to reduce prices and improve value for the customers. Those are not long-term goals, those are necessary means to the real long-term goal - making money.
Nothing wrong with this. Capitalism simply recognizes that greed is an effective motivator. But it requires recognition that an outside regulating force is necessary in order to prevent the end Marx predicted.
Unfortunately in the past decade or so, people have come to worship the free market without realizing its inherent instability, and have worked to remove the external corrective forces.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Basically, that's the case for anythin these days. I subscribed to the Consumer Reports website a few months ago. I actualyl bothered to check the privacy policy, and they stated they wouldn;t reveal any personal information. While subscribing they said "Hey, special offer, get our magazine at a reduced rate." I figured, which not, and checked that off as well.
Well, it turns out that Consumer Reports decided, privacy policy or no privacy policy, that subscribing to their print magazine meant I had opted in to getting all sorts of junk mail. I know it's from them, since I always use a different middle initial when subscribing to anything, to track who is selling what. Just a few weeks after signing up, the junk mail started flowing in. I called them on the fact that they are violating their own prvacy policy by handing out information I gave to their web site to third parties. They haven't bothered getting back to me on it.
If the supposedly pro-consumer Consumer Reports can't be trusted with personal data these days, who can? I don't subscribe to any magazines now, since they'll sell your name off in a split second. My college is selling my name to every educational insitution under the sun (even beauty schools for christ's sake!). My long distance company has sold my name to a bunch of other organizations. I just hand out the bare minimum of information these days, and lie when I feel they do not have the right to demand certain information. Up until recently, I've managed to avoid most junk mail and telemarketer lists, but I have a sinking feeling that once information leaks out, it's just going to spread like oil on water.
I'm tired of being marketed to. I'm not a good little consumer. I'm not a demographic. Leave me the fuck alone.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Doesn't say in the article, haven't had time to wade through the PDF. Other comments have mentioned opt-out, but nothing concrete on how to do so.
Simple question, whoever gives a good, simple reply deserves to be mod'ed up.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
US West then appealed to the 10th circuit court of appeals, where it overturned the FCC's order. The reason? The FCC didn't consider US West's right to "corporate speech".
US West argues the first amendment on two points. First, that it prevents it from speaking to its own customers: and then more seriously, from the ability to "share and use CPNI internally". I'm pretty sure sharing here means with other companies... since a few paragraphs up, it is mentioned in an example clarifying the Telcom Act of 1996: And the court agrees:
You can have Caller ID show the name. On most cellular phones, you dont get the name with the number (but ti'll show the name if the number is in your phonebook) - We had it for a while, generally reliable.
Aside from complaining to the FCC (kudos to sub4hleet for this,) you should write your congressional reps. Here's how to find them:
US House of Representatives
US Senate
Here's some free (as in freedom) sample text for a letter:
Dear Hon. [Senator or Rep Name],
I'm writing in regards to a recent FCC ruling concerning the privacy of your telephone conversations, as well as those of your staff and your constituents. The ruling is profiled in an article in PCWorld Magazine, which is available at this Web site:
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,102743,
The key points of the ruling are summarized in the opening paragraphs of the article:
"Phone companies now can share a consumer's private information with certain affiliates without first getting that customer's consent, a new Federal Communications Commission ruling says. Details of who customers call, when they call, and how long they talk may be shared with communications-related corporate affiliates, the ruling says. Customers can choose to keep such information private, but must initiate the request. The carrier does not have to ask permission."
I believe this ruling represents an egregious threat to my privacy, as well as the privacy of all Americans. As such, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to use the powers of your office promptly and vigorously to persuade the FCC to reverse this ruling, or (at a minimum) alter it such that it is an "Opt In" style program (in which consumers must explicitly give permission to the phone company to share this data.)
Thank you for your attention. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of you and your staff on behalf of all [Your State] - Keep up the great work!
Your Sincere Constituent,
[Your name AND address - Include your four-digit zip code extension!]
Note that you'll have to use Web-based forms to contact these folks - They like to make sure you're one of their constituents before they read your mail.
"One empirical experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions." --Bill Nye, the Science Guy
It's cool. All my phone record is going to show is that I call Earthlink every day and "talk" to them for about twelve hours. Best way yet to keep the telemarketers away. Now if I could just get VoIP to be not crappy on dialup, I'll be all set.
Or buy voicemail from the telco and let them store spam for you.
Frankly I don't care about spam that much. What worries me is that now COMPANIES HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO KNOW ABOUT ME THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT DOES. They need a warrant but a company needs is a check.
The beeps are SIT tones, and you can download a wav file from this page and elsewhere.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Extortion is already illegal. I thought we wanted to ban the act, and not the tool.
If you think that is bad check this out:
, 11 500,667942,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/computergames/story/0
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Oh, I just realized that I didn't leave you my forwarding address.
Please send all that mail to:
Mr. I.M. Asucker c\o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
They have this tiny 'newsletter' (4 pages printed on 1/2 sheet of 8x11 paper) they send with the phone bill. Most people just throw it away. One month it mentioned that they were planning to market data to 'affiliates'...and how to call an 800 number to opt out. To make a long story short, the TV stations and Newspapers got hold of it and the next thing you know Qwest is delaying its implementation and putting out BIG ads on how to opt out. They even allowed you to opt out via the web, because the 800 number was being overloaded with too many calls. I actually got through on the 800 number and the woman there tried to talk me out of opting out! So many people opted out that Qwest gave up the whole plan. Problem is is that the opt out is only good for a year so next year...... well you get the picture.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the "free market" doesn't exist in the United States (or anyplace else on earth at this time).
I do, however, think your conclusions are incorrect. The idea that "the market naturally trends towards consolidation" is really only an untested theory, and I suspect it's not true.
We have no way of knowing if the market will really trend towards consolidation if you take away all the governmnet interference that's currently worked into the system.
I believe much consolidation we see today is motivated primarily by the corrupt political system we've got in place. (EG. A corporate giant can finally achieve "critical mass" to escape high taxes. Look at Microsoft or Cisco, both of whom didn't pay a dime in federal taxes a year or two ago. They were able to generate enough tax breaks and write-offs to pull it off. This just doesn't happen with smaller businesses.)
In a truly "free market economy", I don't think companies would generally see an advantage to large mergers. It causes far too many complications. (You take on a whole slew of employees that largely duplicate the tasks performed by your original staff. You suddenly obtain a product line that you may or may not really know what to do with. You gain all of the property and inherent costs of it, yet it's likely more square footage than you need after you eliminate duplicate jobs and products.)
Put a tax on the methods of delivery. Advertising is covered by the 1st admendment (too a point) but the Constitution doesn't say it can't be taxed. Tax the tv ads, the posters, the billboards, etc. If that is impractical then eliminate the cost of advertising as a business expense that can be claimed.
You can protect the little guy with a cut off for advertising costs that isn't taxed.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
And, of course, taking this out 7 levels deep will make sure you catch all those darned terrorists...as well as Kevin Bacon...;P
The people who are whining about how this will increase junk phone calls just don't get it. WHO you call can impact your life a helluva lot worse than that.
Let's say you call the local AIDS hotline to ask 'em a few questions. You become interested in the topic and call back several times.
Fast-forward a few months or years...
Your health insurance company buys a phonecall database. Lo and behold, there's your calls to the local AIDS hotline. Your health insurance company cancels your coverage (and blacklists you so you can't get health insurance anywhere) because it's obvious to them that you must have AIDS (why else would you call an AIDS hotline?) therefore you are a bad insurance risk.
Or...
Let's say you're an MD. You occasionally call a friend who works as a receptionist at the local abortion clinic, just to chat.
Months later...
A radical anti-abortion group buys a 3rdhand phonecall database. Egads, here's a doctor who dares to be in contact with an abortion clinic! Shortly thereafter, you are shot and killed as you leave your home to drive to work.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
everyone knows that big companies own the FCC, FTC, SEC, US gov, and all the other xxC's. it 's just a matter of time before everyone on labed a "consummer"or a "taxpayer" and not a citizen...wait a second......Damnit!
if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
You probably missed the obscure small print in your phone bill a few months ago telling you how to do this.
I'm not saying that big government is Pure and Good. the most horrible crimes in the history of humanity have been committed by governments and organized religions acting as such.
but in a democracy, a nationalized industry has more accountability than a "natural" monopoly.
if the government runs the phones, you have more options than just "put up with our crap or don't use the phone." you can vote for someone who will install a new head of the federal phone comission or whatever.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Companies (or individuals) cannot fly in the face of my (or your) Constitutional rights. A company can't restrict my speech or search me without my consent. Yes, you can be limited to what you can and cannot do at work on company premises with company equipment. Yes, you can sign your rights away under certain conditions.
However, just because I work for Acme or am a customer of Acme doesn't mean that Acme can come rifle through my home or share my phone records without my consent.
Constitutional rights are protected regardless of whether the party is governmental or civilian. Companies and people can be (and are) busted for civil rights violations.
Heck, like that's a surprise.
I'd say that everyone agrees with you on these. Except that the DMA believes that you are a demographic and that what you think about isn't important.
Everyone raise your hands if you'd like to see these clowns from the DMA actually produce a roomful of people who will swear under oath that they want telemarketers calling them. I keep hearing these guys say that these people exist. It's time to start proving it. But, what I expect we'll hear is that those people have a right to privacy.
And thanks for the tip on Consumer Reports. Guess I'll still be making the trip to the public library to do my product research.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Any market affected by capitalism will tend toward consolidation, for the simple reason that competition is not profitable. The goal of capitalism is to amass capital, and the amount of capital that can be amassed is largely limited by ones competition. Thus, eliminating ones competition, even through a merger, will ultimately by more profitable than than to maintain a competitive market.
To put it bluntly: the goal of capitalism is monopoly.
I don't think capitalism is evil, but it's important to realize that capitalism and the free market (and democracy, but that's not our topic)are almost completely seperate concepts, a fact which has been sadly obfuscated by political and corporate rhetoric since the industrial revolution, and will only become more so as media continues to consolidate under a few big corporations.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It basically does the same thing for "financial institutions" - eveything from your bank to your insurance company. At some stretch, Safeway could even count.
Here's a bit of background to start your research with.
I wish this kind of thing was more publically known.
Your positive impact on the ultimate amount of telemarketing that occurs is small or negligible, but your negative impact on individual telemarketers is much higher.
Point 1: You can't have it both ways
You can't have it both ways... My negative impact on individual telemarketers is small and negligible too. Relatively, it's higher, but it's still very negligible.
Point 2: Every vote counts
The impact I make when I vote is small and negligible, should I stop voting? Should we all stop dissenting if our dissent is small and neglible?
Point 3: You can't start big to get big
Most dissent starts small and neglible, dissent doesn't occur in rapid consent, so it's up to assholes like me to start small and negligible dissent in hopes the dissent will spread.
The Point: My small and negligible dissent is nessecary to inspire others to waste telemarketers time.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
But there are problems. First is getting them to listen to you at all. On many occasion, once I begin asking them to not call me any more and to place my number on the do not call list, they hang up. Second, how do I know who it is that's violating the do-not-call listing anyway? I now have to have to buy caller-id service in order to identify telemarketers who are in violation of the laws.
We currently pay a fee to have an unpublished number and it has helped enormously in cutting down the telemarketer calls. I suspect that this ruling will make that protection less effective. Even now we still get a call or two a month (heck, before we got the unpublished number we sometimes got a half dozen between 6:00 and 9:00).
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Or even, better, give him a ring at:
U S Government Of, Federal Communications Commission
Michael K Powell
(202) 418-2200
Uh... name one.
If employees of Acme came into your house and went through your shazz, those employees would go to prison for breaking and entering. Not for violations of the constitution. You are exactly wrong. Name a single occurence where a completely private entity was limited in it's behavior by the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments. You can't think of one because it's never happened.
There are laws required by other portions of the constitution, for example, the illegalization of slavery. If you tried to hold a slave, the reason you would go to prison would be a state law passed by your local legislature regarding unlawful detainment, or the feds regarding kidnapping. The constitution would not be directly involved in your trial.
There are occurences of semi-private entities being limited, I know, but that's only when they're taking federal/state dollars. Man, if you were trolling, you got me hook, line, and sinker.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I'd like to see a story where the government serves people, rather than failing to serve as a proper mediator and regulator of business.
However, like man bites dog, I doubt I'll see it often or at all.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Here's a link to send mail to the FCC Commissioner, and (politely) tell him what you think of this ruling. http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_email. html
Also inform him that you shall be contacting elected officials regarding the matter.
Never look down your nose at others. Someday, someone is bound to see your boogers.
It's worse than you indicate. In many areas where the market does not naturally tend toward centralized control, the government artificially so regulates it that it will tend that way.
One example of this is the health care industry. It naturally tends towards a few large hospitals, and a large number of small clinics, and a larger number of doctors in private practice. Enter government regularions. The paperwork requirements cause the doctors to need to aggregate so that staff can handle the paperwork. (Lots of other regulation changes and additions.) and we eventually end up with today where doctors are so disgusted with their profession that they are quitting as soon as they can afford to, where their offices have several people per doctor working full time on paperwork, where hospitals are amalgamating into super organizations for reasons that I don't fully understand. And where health care is degenerating yearly, and not slowly.
And the legal insurance requirement on doctors are such that private practice is essentially impossible. (This is partially by the choice of the insurance companies. I don't know just how much is the decision of the insurance companies, and how much is decided by government regulation, but the two combined are pretty poisonous.)
There are less than 1/3 the number of dermatologists working in the city in which I live this year than there were a decade ago. And the city population has increased considerably. And of the dermatologists that I know, most are contemplating early retirement.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
*bzzzzttt* wrong. try again.
When you said "eggregious" (sic) I think you meant "misleading" or "imaginary." They've made attempts at privatizing only parts, capped prices and haven't increased production. Capping prices has got to be the single worst thing you can do. Read this and this if you're interested in the truth behind CA's pseudo-deregulation.
You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation.
What the hell medication are you on? Trade is not free if you're regulating it strongly. It's like saying having a strong police-state results in the preservation of freedom. Beyond that odd statement, it seems like you're advocating the subsidy of failing/failed companies.
I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability.
We don't need an Amtrak-like phone system. Two reasons: quality of service and innovation. Can you fathom a government beurocracy voluntarily giving up it's livelihood because the market demands have changed? Amrak is still going, even though it's losing money hand-over-fist and ridership is shit. Everyone's flying or driving or using Greyound... it's pointless.
If you are on the no call list in missouri, companies can be fined for calling you (there are a couple of exceptions). You can sign up here: http://www.ago.state.mo.us/nocalllaw.htm
I've been pretty happy with it (although, I wish they would include charities).
Here is a check for $5000. By endorsing it you agree to open an account with us for that amount, with 27% interest. (this is a real one I got)
;)
Those are illegal.
I recently collected a whopping $3.47 from a class-action suit against MBNA for sending out these checks. I remember getting one and tossing it in the shredder. But since I was on their list, I automagically qualified as a class member. God Bless class-action suits! It's not about the money. I can probably dig $3.47 out of my couch for spare change. It's about good and evil, right and wrong. (to quote Bush Sr.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What I don't get is, when I applied for a mortgage for my house, I suddenly started getting spam from people wanting me to refinance - not the company that gave me the mortgage in the first place. Why in fuck would the company who's got my business sell my info to a competitor? Just boggles my mind how mindlessly they do this stuff.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There is a single exception, having to do with the Thirteenth Amendment, which in the 1960's was siezed upon as the sole exception and - with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - forms the basis for civil rights lawsuits against private individuals and corporations.
However, I do believe that telcos that sell or otherwise share calling information does violate privacy and that we'll soon see this FCC ruling quashed. I certainly hope so anyway.
I wasn't trolling, I'm just your average opinionated jackass. :)
You can get "caller ID" to show the name associated with the telephone account. However, it will display that name regardless of who is using that phone at the time.
Basically, "Caller ID" is a privacy invading con. It doesn't tell you who, it just provides information which may or may not be private.
I can't believe people haven't learned this rather obvious fact yet, and how many people are willing to pay their phone companies $5-15 a month for an inadequate invasive unreliable "feature" when a $15 answerphone will do exactly the thing they need and work every time, no matter who the caller, without invading the privacy of anyone.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Hehe... um, I'm glad you weren't trolling, but I think you're still a little wrong. The civil rights act is what allows civil rights lawsuits, and not any right prescribed by the constitution. The reason it's a constitutional issue is that the limitations placed on corporations and individuals by the civil rights act could be considered to violate the right of free association, etc. (That is, some people don't want to associate with members of certain races or religions.)
If I'm not mistaken, the way that the feds make the civil rights act constitutional is by calling it the regulation of interstate trade. My favorite thing about this little stretch is how angry it makes educated racists.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Your statement is often repeated, but I'm still not sure I agree with it.
I understand, of course, that the objective of capitalism is amassing capital - but competitors can be rendered irrelevant in many ways. It's not like merging with them through expensive corporate buy-outs is the only (or even most-efficient) way of dealing with them.
As I said before, I think mergers are attractive in the current economy, largely because government's taxes and interference tilts the balance in favor of it.
On a truly level playing field, I think you'd see some buyouts/mergers - but you'd also see spin-offs of new, smaller competitors. (To some extent, you see this now. Intel's CPU making competitor, AMD, seems to have been born from disgruntled Intel employees.)
A given company C.E.O. might always strive to become a monopoly - but it doesn't mean the market will naturally end up this way. Almost all successful monopolies we have today are preserved by government regulation. The ones that aren't don't seem to remain "on the top of the heap" for very long.
The old addage about "the bigger you are, the harder you fall" seems to hold true. At some point, you grow to a size where you can no longer effectively manage everything your corporation is doing. Sure, you try to spread things out - appointing more and more management to oversee small parts of the whole. But the initial vision of the founder gets lost in the murk - and sooner or later, someone comes along who can topple the "empire" with superior customer service/products/value.
The problem with Amtrak is pseudo Nationalization.
Europes trains are run by the government and are the envy of the world.
Amtrak is a private corporation with a government granted monopoly, fed by taxpayer dollars. It combines the greed of the private sector with the laziness of the public sector. Something should be changed.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
People in the US are not avoiding trains because Amtrak is pseudo-nationalized but rather because they don't want to use them.
I think you'll agree that the reason Europe's trains are popular is not because they are government-run but rather that they fit a certain market demand. There is no similar market demand in the US... and you can not artificially create one by nationalization.