Slashdot Mirror
160,000 Join Massachusetts Do-Not-Call List
MacAndrew writes "The Boston Globe reported that over 160,000 people signed up since the first of the year for the state's new do-not-call list, which imposes penalties as high as $5,500 per violation. Nonprofit and political calls are exempt. This list is being implemented well in advance of the proposed FTC national do-not-call list. Residents can sign up by mail, phone, or online. Mass. officials predict a third of the 3 million residential lines will enroll. Legal challenge from marketers appears likely, although the Direct Marketing Association helpfully lists state do-not-call registries. Click here for the DMA's side of the story."
Why would political calls be exempt from this? They're trying to sell something. I might be convinced to agree that non-profit calls are alright, but political calls?
Username taken, please choose another one.
People are saying no to the telemarketers and they will get sued for making their own choice?
So, I pay the phone company, they sell my name and number, then I have to pay them to block spammers? No thanks!
'Erotic sushi' bar serves up tantalizing treats
It took me 5 minutes to sign up my home and cell phone numbers for being on the do-not-call list in MA. A toll-free call and 5 minutes. Not a Self-Addressed-Stamped-Envelope or some crazy address that no one can remember or write down fast enough to get signed up on the list.
As long as the other states make it similarly easy to sign up, then you'll get the same participation.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
We have a DNC list in MO and it's a wonderful thing.
I unfortunately missed out on signing up for this last year; I will not make the same mistake twice!
That's exactly what I was thinking. It seems there's an awful conflict of interest when politicians allow themselves to call people on the do-not-call list, joined only by non-profits.
Illinois doesn't have one yet... bleh
Username taken, please choose another one.
This sounds like the governments trying to take advantage of the situation the way the phone companies do (e.g., selling people's phone numbers while they sell the people caller ID). If the states want a new source of revenue over this, fine; they should give the consumers privacy for free and charge telemarketers exhorbitant rates to abuse that freedom.
Gee, what's the one thing that bugs more people than anything else?
Is it paying taxes? Nope. Is it the commercials on tv? Nope. It's some poor SOB calling you while your eating, or on saturday at 8 in the morning trying to offer you some stupid service or credit card you A)don't want and B) didn't sign up for.
I hope and pray those telemarketing bastards get shot down. I have a phone, yes, but it's not so you can peddle your shit to me.
Sent from your iPad.
All I'm finding on their website is these "Action Alert" things that don't really make any argument other than lots of people have jobs annoying other people over the phone. Lots of people have jobs as prostitutes too. That doesn't make it legal (although I'm much more inclined to have legalized prostitution than I am to outlaw do-not-call lists).
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Must be: "this must be stricken down in court because we're sure people will mistakenly think they do not want to hear our special offers, when they really do"
http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html
Gives them a run for their money and, best of all, if the telemarketer takes a wrong step, they open the company up to legal action.
How long before political committees start leasing out space?
"Hello, will you be voting for Bush in the next election?"
"No."
"Well then, would you like to have the the Daily Liberal newspaper delivered to your door?"
Jason.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
If nonprofits are exempt then can't they just solicit everyone on the do-not-call list?
Suppose I have an unlisted number, then it's unlikely that a charity will be able to get my number (unless someone sells it to them). But if I register with the do-not-call list then I've basically published my phone number for every nonprofit and political party to add to their call list.
i am one of the many telemarketer haters. but seriously, with the US being in such a shady economical state, what would the side effects of this do not call list have on the existing economy.
telemarketing is a large industry that provides a large number of jobs and serves as a way to increase the revenue of the retail, manufacturing, credit, service, and many other markets.
this part of the idea scares me. however, no more telemarketers waking me up and annoying me also sounds very nice.
Hmmm, an industry using the court system to keep their unwanted and antiquated business model alive... Sound familiar to anyone?
Why the HELL are nonprofits and politicians, of all things, exempt?
...I'm not stupid. Perhaps I shouldn't be asking "why." I know why. I should be asking "who let them?" There are three categories of people I don't want calling my house and they've exempted two of them.
I mean
I know what charities exist and if I want to give to them, I will. The ACLU, in fact, got my $35 on January 1st.
My
Limekiller
Legitimate marketing companies have maintained and adhered to Do Not Solicit lists for years. Companies that broke the rules will continue to break the rules--including ignoring these lists. Heck, the company I worked for maintained a list of over 3,000,000 Do Not Solicits that it had accumulated over the years.
The law allows political calls, charity calls and calls from someone you do business with or have done business with. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that a majority of the telemarketing calls I receive fall into one of these very broad catagories.
If a company breaks the rules, how are you going to track them down? And if you track them down, what can you do? In the past, all a company has had to do was show that they were making every effort to adhere to the established rules.
If nothing else, perhaps we should all think about the amount of time and money invested in something like this and realize that it's just a phone call. I mean, my phone has a special anti-telemarketer button that came with it--it's that one you press to hang up.
These are the kinds of ideas I'm looking for, like the "Project Mayhem" stuff from the film Fight Club. I used to get junk faxes, and after awhile I'd copy them and tape them together in a loop, and feed it in on a friday night, late. Other times I'd reply, one very large letter to a page. A friend used to return all faxes in black.
Use the Email your representives form on the DMA site but substitute this text....
I am in favor of the creation of a national do-not-call list as proposed by the Federal Trade Commission.
I see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the regulation of a run away, intrusive industry by putting its immense power behind creating, promoting and expanding a national do-not-call list. This list is certain to help millions of people spending a quiet evening with their families without intrusive, high pressure salespersons calling them at home.
If the govt. doesn't stop them who will??
"The Federal Trade Commission is planning on creating a new "national do-not-call" list which could greatly diminish the number of potential call recipients. Should the federal government be in the business of tearing down this industry? Make your voices heard."
"tearing down this industry" I love it. When the "industry" is calling people in their homes and annoying them with your "amazing new offer," then I say yes! This summer, at my job, Verizon actually called us 3 times in the same day! Seriously. I liked my boss' approach. As soon as they started talking: "I can tell already that I don't want to talk to you." *click"
I think my favorite though is my friend who, when called by some bank being offered a credit card responded with something along the lines of: "That's great! This is just what I need right now. All 6 of my other cards are maxed out, and I had to take out a second mortgage on my house. I was really wondering what I was goign to do!" I think that they actually hung up on her.
Do not read this sig.
bbbrrring... click... "Did you know you could give to charity A..." arrgh
bbbrrring... click... "Did you know you could give to charity B..." arrgh
bbbrrring... click... "Did you know you could give to charity C..." arrgh
bbbrrring... click... "Did you know you could give to charity D..." arrgh
and so on, how does this help?
Really, to be fair to the telemarketers, we should acknowledge that there are many lonely people that enjoy the human contact of telemarketers... many consumers that welcome the valuable information that telemarketers give them... many Alzheimer's patients who are pleased to have someone remind them of all the time-share condos they had decided to buy and investments they had agreed to make.
So, Massachusetts should also set up a list at http://www.mass.gov/pleasecall where you could register your wish to have more telemarketers call you.
Indeed, they could set up an 800 number. Calling this number would AUTOMATICALLY add you to the calling lists of every telemarketer; then by following a simple menu-driven system you could selectively opt out of those you were not interested in.
The whole direct marketing by phone issue seems to be an area where, with regard to those qualities, you can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. If the corprations are unregulated, they'll try and flog stuff to you down the phone day and night. The Market wouldn't seem to work in thia case, as even if 99% of us hang up immediately and boycott the company, the remaining 1% will still provide a customer base the company can get by on. However, if the Feds step in, the companies' freedom goes out the window.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Libertarianism (My views have been pretty well up in the air since Tommy Sheridan destroyed my faith in socialism by being a prick), I was just wondering if any Libertarians here could tell me what their position on this is.
Cheers.
You Mass people must like the telemarketers.
How about trying the same approach for e-mail spam? What makes these two kind of annoyance so much different?
- Your telephone is your property, and it is located inside your house, which is your property.
- The lines running to your phone, while they are the telephone company's property, run through your house and your yard--both of which are your property.
- The switching equipment is the telephone company's property.
- You voluntarily choose to purchase telephone service.
- You voluntarily choose to allow the telephone company to run their lines through your property.
- One of the following two statements is true:
- Your telephone company chooses not to allow telemarketer calls to be carried through their lines. In that case:
- Your telephone case has a civil case against any telemarketer that makes calls to customers using their lines.
- Through your choice to use the telephone company's service, you voluntarily accepted this term as you accepted all other terms in their agreement.
- Your telephone company does allow telemarketer calls to be carried through their lines. In that case:
- Since you voluntarily agreed to have phone service, you voluntarily agreed to deal with whatever comes over the phone lines into your house, including telemarketer calls.
Either way, government has no place sponsoring, creating, or enforcing a "do not call" list, as receipt of telemarketer calls is ultimately either- something you agreed to, and so have no one to bitch to but yourself; or
- something you explicitly did not agree to, and so have a civil case against telemarketers.
Incidentally, if you change the nouns then this is why I oppose anti-spam legislation as well.E-mail bill
Bill # H.R.718
Original Sponsor:
Heather Wilson (R-NM 1st)
Cosponsor Total: 115
(last sponsor added 06/05/2001)
43 Democrats
72 Republicans
About This Legislation:
This bill would require accurate return addresses on unsolicited commercial e-mail. HR 718 would make it illegal to continue sending junk e-mail to a person who has asked to be removed from a distribution list, require unsolicited commercial e-mail to be labeled, and require ISP's to let their customers opt-out of receiving junk e-mail. The bill would also set a penalty for continuing to send junk e-mail after someone has asked for it to stop. HR 718 would also allow ISP's to sue spammers for $500 per message if they violate their antispam policy.
The DMA opposes HR 718 and has testified before Congress on the bill's onerous provisions.
They don't actually say what provisions they find to be onerous. Is it the fact that people can decide that they don't want to receive junk mail? Or is it the fact that they have to provide an accurate return address? Or maybe it's the fact that they would have to label their advertisements as what they are instead of trying to make people think they are something else. No... couldn't be any of those things. That would make the DMA seem evil
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I doubt that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It's not so much people signing up for the list as the state imposing penalties for politicians exercising a free speech right that we hold dear. "Commercial speech" is easier to regulate constitutionally. So (and I'm guessing) I think a court would say the intrusion is relatively mild and that less restrictive alternatives are available, such as anti-harassment law. For example, they get to call you once without penalty, something like that.
There is, however, much better self-regulation, because politicians really really don't want to tick people off, unless they're pretending to be the opponent (it's been done).
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
I live in CO which implimented a do-not-call list about a year ago. I can say it works damn well. I get almost no unsolicited calls. This is compared to when I visited the family over christmas and was having to hang up on 3-4 telemarketers each day. There were no calls during the elections this year so either there is a difference in the law between states or this stipulation has little impact. The only thing I get are calls from the firefighter and Police fraturaties which are delt with with a simple, "Please put me on your 'do not call' list. Thankyou"
I do security
The DMA's numbers are grossly inflated--if you believe them, $274 billion was spent on telemarketing (outbound) in 2001. That would mean that every American household bought $2700 in goods from telemarketers! What a load of crap!
Here in Colorado, our DNC list has been taking subscribers for less than a year, and has been enforceable for about 3 months, and so far 1 million lines are on it. Not sure how many lines we have all together, but the state's total population is 4.4 mil, so I predict Mass. will probably get more than a third of their population on board in the end. And as for the legal challenges, several companies have tried to stop the list with no luck. It's actually kind of funny because it seems like they have some valid arguments sometimes, but the courts refuse to listen to them.
Request: ECM unit, 1000 km fullerene cable, 1 tactical nuclear weapon. Reason: Birthday party for foreign dignitary.
Excellent idea! Use their own gun against them... hee hee
I did...
. htm
http://www.red-abstract.com/users/alexander/diary
Hope someone really gets it...
you had to list your cell phone number? It'll be a very sad day when solicitors start calling my cell using my minutes that I pay for
$cat
The system is generally paid for by charging the telemarketers a fee to give them the list of people they arn't allowed to call. Don't want to pay for the list? Then the state attorny's office just makes you pay with fines instead.
WI has one of these that JUST went effective Jan 1. I signed up in October, when I was getting 2-3 calls between 8 and 11 am every morning and another 2-5 every night. I have received 3 calls since Jan 1 total, 2 hangups and 1 person from the trooper's association. (I don't do contributions on the phone, too many scams where 10% of the money goes to the organization.)
It took me a week to realize I wasn't getting the calls anymore, hard to notice silence, but it is a tremendous difference. Yay for productive legislation.
Now, if anyone can tell me where to sign up for the NO SPAM list, I'll be even happier.
paintball
Yeah, didn't think so. Look it up, that's why you're wrong.
I know I'll get modded down for this :)
I work, as a programmer, for a company that does in-bound (customer care) and out-bound (telemarketing) business. I get just as annoyed at telemarketers as everyone else, but these calls are providing real employment for people who would otherwise be living marginal or supported lives.
Let them give you the spiel, say no POLITELY, and know you helped someone feed their family.
Success is as dangerous as failure, hope as hollow as fear.
The worldwide federation of unsolicted email has just provided a do-not-spam email list. The list will provide an easy way for spammers to check and see if your email address is on the list, so that you will not receive their wonderful deals! When asked if spammers would use the list to send you anonymous advertising, the federation replied, "Spammers are good honest citizens of society and would never do such a thing."
The futexes are also cursed!
to provide an automated way for me to contact my Legislators and tell them I am in favor of the national do-not-call list. Darned civilized if you ask me.
Then you could charge license fees for them to call you!
I think that these state based no-call lists are just a money grab. Last year Missouri made about 1 million dollars off of fines (here's a small play by play - we went after Miss Cleo!). Yeah, I know, it's not much in a government budget, but that was after the first year and not many people had signed up.
After that 'success', Attorney General Nixon announced his desire to start a No-Spam list, which is kind of silly but it does give the state another group of people to fine. A pretty large group, assuming that they're actually ever able to hunt a spammer down. Granted, it doesn't cost me anything and I have received substantially fewer telemarketing calls (but a lot more calls with silence on the other end...) and I'm not complaining, but what's the real point of this? And why now? This could've been started years ago. Why the sudden push? Anyone else?
If you are in California, make a fuss about this in your local press.
The AG's office website gives gives some information, but fails to mention that they've let the deadline slide.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Minnesota also is starting the same program with more than half of the phone lines already signed up for the new year.
Indiana had one of these for a while and I didn't hear it being mentioned on slashdot. It works great, too!
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
I've been using the NY Do-Not-Call List for a bit and it works pretty well, so far. There are, however, a few loopholes. I don't know about the ones outside the state, but for the NY one the company is allowed to call you if you've already done business with it, are doing business with it or either one of those for a parent company or subdivision. That's pretty broad so a few still get through.
Ours is damn expensive. Check this out:
I wanna know where the hell all that money is going!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If someone signs up to the Do Not Call list, they are very unlikely to be receptive to telesales. So why is the DMA complaining, the markets for their members are substantially narrowed so they waste less time making none-productive calls.
Anyway, here in the UK, your local authority can/will sell the _electoral roll_ to snail mail spammers. That's right, if you sign up to vote, you will likely get junk mail.
<anecdote>Several years ago, my parents put in a nice new kitchen. Only after, and I mean days, did telemarketers ring us up at dinnertime asking if we would like to buy a new kitchen. Those calls lasted for about two years, on and off.</anecdote>
I live in Texas, and not only does it cost ~$2 to sign up, but there's a bunch of confusing exemptions, roughly 6 months delay of activation, and is only available for residential phones. I can get more than $2 enjoyment out of telling off a telemarketer, or out of speaking nothing but German till they get confused and hang up. They generally don't call back after that one. So unless it's going to be free as in beer, and without exemption, I'm not gonna bother unless, as the parent post says, it becomes similarly easy to Mass.'s program, with a plus for no exemptions.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
when telemarketers are such a great form of entertainment. When telemarketers call me, I don't just hang up- I prank them. I pretend to have a heart attack, or to kill someone, or ask them what they're wearing. Bonus points for the more you can scare/piss them off.
Hell, they're wasting my time by bugging me, providing a ource of amusement is the least they can do.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It hurts the economy by devoting captial to harassing people during dinner. Every person not paid to do this is a person who can be paid to do soemthing else - or just a slightly lower interest rate on credit cards so people can spend that money on other products.
We shouldn't be paying people to waste other people's time when we could be paying them to do something productive. Hell, it would be better for the economy if we just paid those people not to do anything, like we do with farmers.
paintball
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Any transation that cannot be completed over the phone is exempt from the do-not-call list. That means most of those annoying recorded messages that end up on your answering machine -- "Sorry I missed you, but let me tell you about a great deal on clothes at..."
[insert witty comment here]
Once, when I had just turned 18 and there was a political election of some sort in my town, I got a phone call from a political faction who asked me how I intended to vote on bill X (which I don't remember anyway). I angrily told him never to call again and hung up, and my mom went off on me for a good ten minutes yelling about how political calls are different from telemarketers. Is she, as I think, merely poisoned by society's expectations, or was I in the wrong?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I think telemarketing is one such breach of that boundary, as well as any other type of unsolicited communication, including e-mails and snail mail. As miniscule the amount of time it wastes, dealing with these intrusions is an unwanted effort that people shouldn't have to expend for the sake of someone else's need.
160,001.
The trick was very simple. I sent in a post card to the Direct Marketing Association asking to be placed on their do not call list. And then, when people call, I always say to place me on their do not call list. I get less than one live phone call a month. (The thing I get are recorded messages from autodialers. Some God-damned charity thinks I want to reward their harrassment by giving them a car.)
I have read that over sixty percent of the populations purchases an item at least once a month in response to a telephone call. I know people who make these calls for a living. Certain people appreciate the opportunity to donate to their charity over the telephone, or to make theatre subscriptions. But telemarketers are not interested in wasting their time in calling people who are not going to buy, donate or subscribe.
Here is a link on the Direct Marketing Association website that explains about how to get off telephone list. I can attest that it has worked for me. And the cost was only for a postcard.
How many of the numbers do you think are actually in Massechusettes?
All you out of staters /.ers get off the server!! I'm trying to sign up, dammit!!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It wasn't mentioned how to do this in the article. For those who live in Pennsylvania, the website is:
http://www.nocallsplease.com
When will the script be ported to Perl?
paintball
They want to make it harder for people with no money to get (re)elected.
paintball
We did this about a year ago here, and its cut down a LOT on the calls.
A few suits have been filed for violators too.
They institued both a call in line to sign up and a web page.
its funded by the companies purchasing the list so they dont violate the law.. a bit shady i think, but something had to be done.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
One small step for man, one great leap for mankind
Nearly all of the calls I get (in Australia BTW) are of the form "Would you like to come to our free seminar" or something like that. Mainly real estate or investment groups. All the others tend to be "non-profits" soliciting donations.
Since they're not trying to complete a sale in the call, they wouldn't be excluded.
A pretty piss-weak "do not call" list if you ask me. This legislation makes about as much sense as US foreign policy.
I actually enjoy calls from phone spammers for one reason...I cost them money. I never just hang up on them. That's too easy, let's them move on the next person. I stay on the line and talk to them as long as I can. I ask all kind of stupid questions and act interested in whatever crap they're pitching. Of course, I never buy anything. When I run out of questions, I just say "Not interested" and wait for them to start whining. This wastes a lot of their time and of course time is money. If more people did this, there would be no need for a do-not-call list.
I checked into Oregon's do not call list when I first moved here. As I recall, it cost a consumer $6.00 for the first year and $3.00 per year after that. Seems to me that the telemarketers should be the ones paying the costs, not the consumers. Same sort of scam as paying extra for an unlisted number.
It was not listed on the-dma.org, but PA has an online site where you can sign up.
http://www.nocallsplease.com
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
bah, they did the same thing CT did a long long time ago
http://www.state.ct.us/dcp/PDF/nocallcp.pdf has a nice little for you could fill out, or call up for, to sign up on the do not call list
this has been going on for years now.
Runnin' On Empty
Do any of the people who get these violated calls see any of that 5,500 dollars?
Banning telemarketing doesn't kill jobs. It makes the company spend their money on DIFFERENT jobs - ones that might, say, improve the product.
Or just reducing the cost of their product to compete better.
Either way, more money available for something that doesn't annoy people during dinner.
paintball
I did a bit of telemarketing this summer (mostly calling people on a business's client list, so no death threats, please) and one night we were supposed to call people in Colorado, a state with a list much like this. We were told in the briefing: "It's too much trouble to get the list, so if people say they're on the list, hang up and don't give them your information. An occasional fine is cheaper than getting the list" So i don't think it'll have much effect until a lotta people get both caller id and the will to complain with the information.
BTW, the political spam case against Senator Elizabeth Dole in NC was dismissed without prejudice for lack of evidence. Anyone have more details?
That was dismissed WITH prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. Oops.
As I understand it, different types of speech are protected to greater or lesser extents by the first amendment. Political speech is the most protected, and the courts are (rightly) loath to allow restrictions on it. Hence, the parts of such a bill that restrict politicians from making unsolicited calls could well, as I understand US law, be found unconstitional.
Nonprofits are a different matter, of course.
IANAL. IANA American, either :)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Dear DMA if there are really so many eagar potential customers out there you should FAVOR a national DNC list!
Your association could then operate a (dare I say it?!!?) national OPT-IN list where all those customers could register, and even indicate (perhaps even on an ongoing basis)what they are interested in hearing about. Both your hit rate and reputation would likely improve as you began to offer a true SERVICE to both your clients and their customers.
On the other hand, if there are not somany potential marks out there, perhaps your organization would dry up and blow away...
In either case EVERYBODY WINS!
I. M. Notbuyinit
As a person involved with sales, I value my time. People who do not want to be harrassed should not be called. The only thing it accomplishes is to make them have bad feelings towards your company. That being said, I believe that the industry (telemarketers) should be in favor of these types of lists and make strides to enhance customer loyalty. They should have an industry maintained list, as the penalty for harrassment is loss of sale and bad feelings. A happy customer might tell 2-3 of his closest friends. An upset customer will tell everyone he knows.
2nd point:
This is a technology problem, and is best addressed with a technology solution. Making a list of phone numbers not to call seems akin to making a list of IP's not to hack, or email addresses not to spam. Just as I'm sure a hacker would not pay attention to a state run Do Not Hack list, I believe people on the do not call list will continue to get calls, especially considering the massive loopholes in the provision. The only real solution here is to have an enterprising company provide a technology solution (like a firewall and HIDS for your IP at home).
p.s.
I would not trust any of the phone companies to do this because they play both sides and pit us against each other.
I cut the suggested text, replaced it with "As a harassed citizen, I strongly support the proposed national do-not-call database. The DMA can go to hell", signed it and submitted it.
Phil
there is not a single example, arguement, excuse, etc the DMA could offer that would convince me they should be allowed to call me. Like I am really gona give to a DMA bozo my credit card number, SSN, mortgage rate, or any information on a cold call.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
...is just how "non-profit" you have to be in order to avoid fines. There are plenty of phony non-profits with no real motivation outside of acting as a front putting money in a very few people's pockets *coughAmeriDebtcough*; though this is a loophole of sorts which applies to much more than just telephone spamming.
Bored with karma, be a fan/freak
Noticed this while digging around the links. Doubtful that any sensible person would give their SSN over the phone to a stranger ... but people do continue to watch the Anna Nicole Smith show, so who knows?
a m.html
http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/telemarketsc
(Score:-1, Wrong)
Of course, I still get calls from non-profit orgs asking for money, but it's much less common and it's easier to turn them down.
...just my 2 gil.
I often question the wisdom of the fact I moved from California to Indiana. For once, though, Indiana is ahead of California (since our list has been available for over a year and California's won't be active until April). Once we got on the "do not call" list, the rude, obnoxious, irritating, annoying and generally stupid telemarketing calls dropped from several pre day to zero.
We don't need a national policy since most states are smart enough to handle this on their own, but I'm very appreciative of its availability here.
My favorite trick (now obsolete without any such calls):
Hello?
Slight delay while the computer determines which of several dialed calls was answered.
HI! Can I speak to Bill ******?
May I ask who is calling?
This is Martha from CitiBank calling to let him know that he has already been preapproved for $XX Million in overdraft/fraud/collision/xxxx insurance, completely guaranteed by CitiBank!
Just a moment.
{
Put down the phone. Eat/surf/watch TV;
sleep(two minutes);
Hi Martha. Sorry for the delay. He'll be right there!;
} until {beep beep beep beep beep...)
I'm still trying to figure out a valid reason for direct marketers to oppose an opt in do not call list.
Presumably anyone who opts onto the list is highly unlikely to listen to the sales blurb and bite on the deal. Therefore a 160,000 strong opt in list is 160,000 calls they do not have to make and therefore save on.
My phone # has been on DNC list for at least a year. Everything was quiet for a while. Last month started receiving calls from Disney cruise. Last week got a call from Earthlink. Both new about DNC lists. Go figure.
This has worked well (according to all reports, I'm not living here enough longer to justify it) in Arkansas. Check out official info at www.donotcall.org.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
Yes.
:)
:) )
Yes, now every local candidate can compete, cheap and easy... using e-mail and phone spam.
For the cost of just THE LIST:::
1) Political candidate buys list of 1,000,000 numbers (1M expected by Mass.)
2) Candidate limits list to his/her county/district/city. (Easy--uses a phone book for area codes and the first three numbers.)
A candidate for a county of 600,000 people can expect to have 100,000 appropriate phone numbers.
(The original list represents 1 / 6th of the state's population, so we divide 600K by 6.)
3) Political candidate emails his MOST DEDICATED 2,000 supporters 50 unique phone numbers each. In the e-mail, he would say
"If you could call up these 50 people by (three days before election) and tell them to root for me, that would be great. Oh, and this way, each of us will get a call from one of the supporters. Just act sincere and don't divulge that you are taking part!
Oh, and just as a test, if you don't get a call, please let me know! Finally, if you are gonna be out of town, yada, yada, yada, please reply and let me know."
The trick?
EITHER WOULD WORK: 1) The candidate would make sure to put just ONE supporter's number into someone else's list. OR 2) If he wasn't too busy, he'd just put his cell phone number on each list.**
He would probably do both (48 real voters, 1 supporter, and himself, the latter two randomly scattered but near the bottom
This way, he will know as the deadline approaches, which person has called or not. He will count his many calls he personally got (meaning the number of lists that have gone through, and each list is 48 real people) and know if this is working or not working before the election even starts.
The dozen people who reply that they can't do the list, the politician will call that person's list personally (which is good, too.)
But for the people who never call by (three days before election), he will know by never seeing supporter "Bob'" personal phone number on caller ID. The other way is if supporter "SAMMY", who was on Bob's list, reports to the candidate like instructed and says he wasn't called. The candidate would know sammy was on Bob's list.
The lists that didn't work our or were cancelled early on due to yadayadayada, the politican would call himself (he would still have three days left.)
-
Yes I made this all up, but it is so feasible it's not funny. I could make this text look pretty, but that would take even longer than it did to make this.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the continuance of an industry by ignoring the concerns of the public.
At a time when the number of older Americans is going to grow tremendously, their protection from scam artists and con men is more important than providing jobs for the semi-literate scum who interrupt their dinners.
The American economy doesn't need irate consumers. It needs people to stabilize their credit and be responsible with their money. This does not include purchasing magazines, aluminum siding or family portraits from businesses they do not know.
The DMA's half-hearted attempts to appease the American public with their sorry excuse for a do-not-call list has finally been recognized for what it is - a sham. And the public has finally raised their voice and asked the government to devise a more rigorous scheme to curtail the amount of intrusions we must incur simply by having a telephone number.
As a consumer, I can only hope that the Federal goverment will continue to persue these avenues and also address the problem of unsolicited email in the future. Until that time, however, I fully expect the DMA to stand up for the thieves and spammers so that I might also increase the size of my penis by three inches while refinancing my mortgage and protecting my Windows computer from viruses. Being that I have neither a penis, a mortgage, or a computer running Windows, I will rejoice when legislation is passed to finally put an end to unsolicited email, as well.
--mandi
As a MA resident, I signed up for the DNC list. I noticed that the web site did nothing to verify my identity when I placed myself on the list. How do they know a friend or relative entered my name and address into the database for me. If I represented the DMA on this case, I'd mount a legal challenge by arguing that there is no evidence that the person entering the data is indeed the person he/she claims to be.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Drive all the telemarketing jobs overseas to places like India, where this law does not apply, and at the same time provide them a nice list of _verified_ numbers to work with. Booya!
January 7, 2003
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
I am entirely in favor of a national do-not-call list.
I find it obnoxiously intrusive to constantly receive solicitation from
telemarketers in my own home, which too often take too much of the
precious time i wish to spend with loved ones, while recovering from my
rigorous working hours.
Furthermore, while telemarketers are supposed to be trained to respect
people's right to say "no", it has been my personal experience to find it
often challenging to exercise that right, faced with somewhat resilient
telemarketers who just would not take "NO" for an answer.
Current laws already give me the right to request from the caller that
they no-longer call me. When getting 3 to 5 different telemarketing calls
in a same evening, this already represents more time than i am willing to
spend to protect a peaceful existence.
The Direct Marketing Association does have an opt-out list. No business is
*required* to become part of the DMA. While they provide strict rules for
their members to abide by, enforcing those rules and punishing offenders
strictly relies on *potential* complaints from residents, which requires a
significant amount of work from the resident to determine whether or not
the telemarketer belongs to the DMA, and for the DMA to follow-up on those
issues. While the system appears to be beneficial on the surface, I truly
believe it provides no *significant* protection to victims of telemarketer
calls.
In my view, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the
privacy of citizens who make the conscious decision to not ever be
sollicited by telemarketers while at home. I believe a federally-regulated
do-not-call list with provisions for strong sanctions against offenders is
the single, true, effective answer to a problem that has been plaguing our
society for far too many decades.
Sincerely,
[ME. HEH]
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
in Minnesota and Wisconsin. I guess them fast talking east coast folks like gettin' them phone calls. In the midwest we prefer our privacy. Now go away.
Every case challenging the TCPA on constitutional grounds (1st amendment, due process clause, etc) has ultimately held the TCPA's restrictions on faxes and telemarketing calls presents noconstitutional infirmities under First Amendment grounds. The constitution does not give you the right to electronically barge your way (uninvited) into my home, demand the use of my equipment and ink and paper supplies (in terms of junk faxing) to present your message, shifting all your selling costs to me without my permission or request.
h er_cases/o lympic-1a.pdfc e/other_cases/s t-lou-1a-ua.pdfe nce/other_cases/D OJAmicusSupportingMissouri.pdf
Texas v. ABF, 121 F.Supp. 2d 1085 (W.D. Tex, 2000)(fax calls)
Destination Ventures Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54 (9th Cir.1995) aff'g 844 F.Supp. 632 (D. Or.1994)(fax calls)
Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1995) (telemarketing calls) cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1161 (1995)
Kenro, Inc. v. Fax Daily, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.Ind.1995) reh'd. 962 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Ind. 1997)(fax calls)
Szefczek v. Hillsborough Beacon, 668 A.2d 1099 (Super. Ct. N.J. 1996) (telemarketing calls).
Come courts have decided otherwsie; an 8th Circuit District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) judge recently ruled (March 13, 2002) that the TCPA is unconstitutional. The judge was none other than Rush Limbaugh's uncle, Steven Limbaugh, Sr. (not to be confused with Rush's cousin, Steven N. Limbaugh, Jr., who is the chief justice of the Missouri Supreme Court). It has been essentially attacked by every authority since. See Missouri Circuit Court judge correctly rips apart Limbaugh's ruling that the TCPA is unconstitutional. Missouri Circuit Court Judge Patrick Clifford got it right. Opinion dated 5/14/02. Decisions like these renew my faith in our legal system. This decision by the state court was extremely well done and is highly entertaining reading. Also take a look at the US Dept of Justice amicus brief in support of over turning Limbaugh's ruling. In addition, another Missouri decision upholds TCPA constitutionality on Aug 13, 2002 noting that junk faxes are no more protected than graffiti on someone else's property.
Links:
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/reference/ot
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/referen
http://www.junkfax.org/fax/refer
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
What we really need is a "Do not spam" email list. No problems with that, eh?
It appears that last month, with more than a month to go before the law took effect, more than one million Wisconsinites joined the No Call List. For a state with an adult population in the area of four million, that's pretty impressive. Apparently a great deal of the state hates the calls as much as I do. If you're in Wisconsin, join the crowd and get on the No Call List, it's the cool thing to do!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Telemarketing does not help the economy. The only telemarketing calls I've gotten are along these lines:
1. Want new aluminum house siding? No thanks.
2. Thinking of selling your home? No.
3. Make lots of money at home stuffing envelopes. Hell no.
4. You've been authorized to receive a new spankin' credit card. Remember, its okay to have more than one! Fuck no!
You see, I can't see how any of these telemarketing calls helps the economy at all, unless the economy runs on compulsive spenders and shady snake oil deals. Both of which undermine a healthy economy that should be guided by informed consumers. If the invisible hand is guided by morons, then we're all screwed.
This is what will be automatically sent to a congressman:
I am opposed to the creation of a national do-not-call list as proposed by the Federal Trade Commission.
I simply do not see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the destruction of a $700 billion sector of our economy by putting its immense power behind creating, promoting and expanding a national do-not-call list. This list is certain to contain millions of people who might otherwise have become (or already are) satisfied consumers of teleservices products and services, and who we need to survive and grow.
At a time when we are experiencing budget deficits and struggling to emerge from recession, can we afford to risk losing the billions in tax revenues this industry generates, not to mention the millions of jobs it provides?
Professional telemarketers are trained to respect people?s right to say "no," hang up, or be permanently taken off of a calling list. In addition, The Direct Marketing Association already has a national do-not--call list and requires all of its members to screen these names from their lists or suffer penalties, including possible expulsion from The DMA.
In my view, the Federal government should not be in the business of destroying this productive, economically vital form of sales communication. It is my sincere hope that the FTC reconsiders this anti-business, anti-competitive, job-killing proposal.
==========
So, the argument is pretty much as you say: lots of people do it; I don't want to spend money to stop it.
...create non-profit organizations that "call people about products on behalf of private companies... for free."
Yes, they have a right to say things, but they don't have a right to force me to hear them.
Don't answer the phone then - it's a bloody phone call, not anything 'forced'.
creation science book
Hang up the phone.
Throw away the flyers.
Ignore them on the street corner.
Don't go to the polls.
when I get telemarketing calls, I sometimes answer:
"hmm, he got kicked out of school"
"You didn't know? He was in a coma"
"He was hit by a car two weeks ago"
"Are you calling for his funeral time?"
"He was arrested for credit card fraud" (if a credit card telemarking call)
"He is at his illiteracy class" (if a magazine telemarketing call)
"He is at his telemarketing internship, let me have your number so he will call you back"
"He is at his bankruptcy hearing, who's this?"
etc, etc...
it got annoying after receiving almost one call per hour, with the occasional "hello? hello? HELLO?" on my answering machine. I was told my college is on one of those lists, and we went through several phone system changes. But we managed to get more everytime.
now I wonder if it's legal to answer phone calls that way?
Say, what would happen if someone wrote a short script to bruteforce all phone numbers in Mass^H^H^H^HTAXachusetts and submit them to the website?
Could you put a whole state on a do-not-call list?
Be sure to use your own zip code in the above url, so your letter gets sent to the appropriate recipients.
Instead of using the text that comes up by default, i took time to write the above. A good chunk of my letter offers counterpoints to DMA's arguments.
-------
January 7, 2003
[recipient address was inserted here]
Dear [recipient name was inserted here],
I am entirely in favor of a national do-not-call list.
I find it obnoxiously intrusive to constantly receive solicitation from telemarketers in my own home, which too often take too much of the precious time i wish to spend with loved ones, while recovering from my rigorous working hours.
Furthermore, while telemarketers are supposed to be trained to respect people's right to say "no", it has been my personal experience to find it often challenging to exercise that right, faced with somewhat resilient telemarketers who just would not take "NO" for an answer.
Current laws already give me the right to request from the caller that they no-longer call me. When getting 3 to 5 different telemarketing calls in a same evening, this already represents more time than i am willing to spend to protect a peaceful existence.
The Direct Marketing Association does have an opt-out list. No business is *required* to become part of the DMA. While they provide strict rules for their members to abide by, enforcing those rules and punishing offenders strictly relies on *potential* complaints from residents, which requires a significant amount of work from the resident to determine whether or not the telemarketer belongs to the DMA, and for the DMA to follow-up on those issues. While the system appears to be beneficial on the surface, I truly believe it provides no *significant* protection to victims of telemarketer calls.
While i understand the DMA's concerns that an opt-out list would significantly reduce the number of potential residents telemarketing businesses may call, thereby potentially reducing the telemarketing work force, I would like to point out such list should dramatically increase the quality of the telemarketing business by reducing frustration among the telemarketing staff and the prospective customers, leading to more productive and successful business transactions. The multi-billion-dollar figures touted in parallel to purportedly dramatic potential losses by the DMA, should, in my opinion, be mitigated by the many beneficial aspects of a national "do-not-call" list.
In my view, it is the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the privacy of citizens who make the conscious decision to not ever be sollicited by telemarketers while at home. I believe a federally-regulated do-not-call list with provisions for strong sanctions against offenders is the single, true, effective answer to a problem that has been plaguing our society for far too many decades.
Sincerely,
[MUH LAME ASS] ---------
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
It turns out we don't want to get called, but we still buy.
We hate TV ads, and think we go to the bathroom, but ads still affect our behavior, enough that Regis can be paid $20MM a year.
And most of us are posting using MS software. Admit it.
It's all about what we say and what we actually do.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
(courtesy of google. My german isn't that good)
Strike off you shit God [Lästerung]!
or
give me placentas or give me death!
Just switch off that brain - not like it was given to you for a reason, or anything...
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
you're welcome to re-use elements of my letter but do try and come up with your arguments and counterpoints. One thing that comes to mind right now is that someone might want to put a stronger emphasis on the intrusive nature of telemarketing, as it requires you to drop whatever you may be doing at the time, potentially build up expectations as to who may be calling you, someone you may be expecting a call from, an important call, while occupying the lines and potentially preventing another important phone call from coming in (not everybody uses call waiting, though i do heh).
Contrast that with other forms of sollicitation such as snail mail and email (spam) which, while still intrusive, enable you to easily prioritize when you will be looking at mail, what you will be looking at, what you will dismiss, where a prospective customer makes the conscious decision to set some time aside to "check the mail" before moving-on to more pleasant things in our free time.
blech.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Aren't cell phones automatically not suposed to be called ('cause it costs me airtime minutes). Why not just use a cell phone as your only voice line (telemarketers can call my computer all day... it ain't gonna answer!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I haven't had a call in a long time! I'd sign up for the NO SPAM list even faster!
?SYNTAX ERROR IN SIG
READY.
Having lived in Mass, the scariest phone calls are not from telemarketers but from the many "benevolent" police associations thats ask for donations. It always feels like a call from the godfather himself.
They are exempt from this legislation, and they already had my name and there is nothing I can do that can keep them from calling...
Missouri No call list
It's been nearly 100% effective!
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I've been trying to get myself on this list using the online sign-up, but it keeps having technical difficulties. I hope that the loopholes are tight enough for this to be relatively effective, but I'm very skeptical. What I really want to know is how the website works b/c it seems like I can type anyone's phone# in and have them entered on the list. Seems that a good samartin could whip up a bit of code that would transfer switchboard's MA listings into the govconnect input field.
ôó
I started meticulously asking to be put on the do not call list, and more importantly, as mentioned in the junkbusters info, ask for the telemarketing company to add me to the DNC list for all companies that they represent.
It only took about 2 months of doing that, and hardly any calls. Now after 2 years of that, it's been months since I've gotten a call.
Just today I was called by a home security marketer and asked if I was interested in a home security system. I replied...
...CLICK...
"Loo' mutha fudda... I ain't harly done paid fo' da' box I in, sos I ain't 'bout to pay fo no insurance. 'sides, I doan thank no'un is gonna try un take muh box. Nigga', how'd you ged muh cell phone numba ineways?"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
What exactly do they teach in the "illiteracy class?"
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Legislation like this has been needed for awhile. I personally worked as a telemarketer this summer for a telemarketing company, Civic Development Group. I alone could easily make 100 calls per hour. At even a 10% sale to answered-call ratio, this amounts to an ungodly profits for the company.
As if that weren't enough, however, the company made its sales by selling on "behalf" of charitable institutions such as the Fireman's and Fire Marshall's association, Fraternal Order of Police, and so on. When asked how much actually went to the charity, by law we were required to tell them that what it actually was--usually in the ballpark of 15 percent. I'd say out of thousands of calls, I had only four or five people ask.
The real kicker, however, was the deception of the callers. Though they were careful to never come outright and say it, it was implied that callers act like they were directly affiliated with the charity on whose "behalf" they were calling; firemen, policemen--whatever made the sale.
I, needless to say, quit the job after a month because of the unethical (and harassing) practices of the company. In light of this, however, I believe that not only should we be considering providing Do Not Call lists, but we should also consider passing laws like those that exist in Maryland (I think that was the state) which requires the caller to state both the percentage being sent to the charity and clear indication (rather than the current implicit--"we/our/us"--laws) that the caller is NOT affiliated with the group.
I was added to the do-not-call list in Tennessee. When it took effect the calls stopped for quite a while.
Then, they began again.
However, now instead of a telemarketer on the other end when I pick up the phone, all I get is a "click" and I am disconnected.
The automated calling systems still call me - more than ever it seems (a DOZEN calls a day is a bit much, dontchathink?) - but now they do not transfer me to a telemarketer, but simply disconnect me.
Their numbers are completely blocked and I cannot find out who they are, but I'm sure even if I did, they would claim they are not actually violating the rules, as they are not talking to me.
Once again, the state of Indiana is a full year ahead of the rest of the country.
http://www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/
Works great for us. Best of luck to you late adopters out there.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
DMA provides their own "do not call list" for consumers. Only telemarketers that are members of the DMA and elect to honor the list will actually use the list and not call you. So review their instructions for yourself on how to place yourself on their list:
DMA remove from telemarketing list information
What a scam! they CHARGE $5.00 to accept online submissions, but mail-in requests are free! Now, what acutally costs them more?!?
They actually try to scare you into using the online form by warning that registering by mail takes longer. This convinces me that they not very interested in representing consumer interests.
Bring on the nation-wide do-not-call list!
The name and the address are required fields, for some reason. Fortunately the don't (and can not) do any verification, so my number is now registered and "Doofus Anonymous" lives at 0 Privacy Drive in Newton, MA...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
A couple people have noted the exemption made for calls to individuals whom the company represented by the telermarketer has an existing or prior buisness relationship with. These people make this loophole out to be a huge problem or glaring flaw with the legislation.
However, I contend that the loophole is really relatively minor. Think about it like this. An individual signs up for the DNC list. In doing this, he has sent a clear message that he does not want calls. Furthermore, this message is backed by a set of punitive damages for violations of his intention, as outlined by the law. Now, a company with a prior business relationship is technically exempted by the law, and is allowed to call the individual. However, it does not make sense for this company to call this individual for a number of reasons:
1) He will likely consider this call annoying, even if it is legal. Remember, the individual took the time to exempt himself from calls he considers annoying. An annoyed potential customer is unlikely to make a purchase.
2) Even if the call is legal, some percentage of these individuals will not fully understand the law, and waste the telemarketer's time trying to explain that the call is illegal. The telemarketer would then have to explain that the call is in fact legal due to the business relationship. However, at this point the sale is clearly lost.
3) As others have noted, these laws may serve to increase yield of the telemarketers by creating a statutory filtering system. In effect, the govenment is doing a great deal of filtering for the telemarketers. Now, if a company with an established business relationship still calls without respect to the list, they are practically guaranteed to lower their yield (for the reasons stated above).
Thus, I believe that there will not be rampant calls made under this category, because it just doesn't make economic sense to for the telemarketer.
Rather, this exemption exists for the protection of more legitimate calls to the customer directly related to a business relationship which the customer would most likely find agreeable otherwise . That is, even if the DNC list did not exist, the average customer would not object to these calls. Therefore, the creators of the legislation were careful to protect this.
(Note that I do NOT believe this reasoning applies to charities or other non-profits; I believe people are willing to 'cut some slack' for the charities, and put up with the calls to help our their fellow man.)
...Now, if anyone can tell me where to sign up for the NO SPAM list, I'll be even happier.
Sure just send a blank email to iwantnomorespam@Alan-Ralsky.com
Wow! Imagine the outrage from all those people who sit through dinner every night without another valuable oportunity to buy something they are not interested in. This could be a very popular lawsuit indeed. It's a travesty, I tell you. Someone must have made a robot to call in all those numbers, it can't be that people don't really want to get carpet cleaning, siding, credit card and bankrupcy solicitations, can it?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
how about a non-transferable, time limited opt-in list that must be maintained by each and every company that would call you?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I agree with those who want to put controls on telemarketing.
Until then, I use a TeleZapper (disclaimer - I have no monetary interest in this thing. I vaguely remember buying it a Radio Shack). It puts out a beep tone that sounds like a FAX answering.
At first there were a lot of hangups, as the computer dialers give up(and most telemarketers use computer dialers, even if the pitch is given by a human).
Over time, the number of calls has dropped significantly.
Unfortunately, it also blocks the computer calls from the public library which used to tell me when requested books had arrive. So its like Spam - any measure you take to deal with the a$$holes has side effects..
The only good weather is bad weather.
Since MA enact that law, I bet call operator is going to move to India or some other country to bypass that law.
I agree, I don't have a right not to be annyed, but...
I firmly believe to have a right not to be annoyed by scum abusing my property (time / equipment / resources) in order to annoy me.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
When telemarketers call, just hit them back with this!
The government has no right to tell telemarketers that they can't use their phones as they wish. By my subscription to the phone service I open myself up to all of the negative effects that service might have on my life. I accept that I'm going to interact with that system. Furthermore, the telemarketers pay for their subscriptions to the phone services so what right does the government have to interfere with their use of what they legitimately paid for?
The answer to preventing telemarketers from calling needs to give power to the end users, not to the government/legal system. Look at all of the methods we're developing to counter spam. Many of them can also be applied to the phone system with a little creative engineering. Heck, the effort to prevent "abuse" by telemarketers might have lead to much more inteligent phones had the legal road not been tried. The technological answers would probably actually end up working better, too.
Governmental regulation has its place. It can be used to demand that all people making phone calls either be honest about their identity or not provide one, allowing the technological solution to work more effectively. But the place is certainly not telling people what they can do with their own purchases.
Where there is a state-defined "political" which is the only brand of legally free speech, "tyranny" cannot be "risked," because it already exists. Hence the lack of a set of "political"/"commercial"/other distinctions in the 1st Amendment. Jefferson & Co. knew what they were doing, and it has no correspondence with what you're saying.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
I'm just wondering, we're always saying that all forms of opt-out are inherently bad in the case of spamming. Why is this any different for phone-spammers?
Getting listed on a DNC list is obviously an opt-out scheme. I can't help wondering what makes this such a good thing and DM people advocating a national/worldwide opt-out list evil at the same time.
i mean in europe this is dealt far more easily with. It's just illegal to call anybody first hand to sell him something (wihtout having business with him). It does not matter if he is on a list or not. In germany/austria this law is called "unlauterer wettbewerb", the only smaller problem is that it takes a competitor of the caller to sue a violator, you personally can't, as only the competitor takes economical damadge if someone sells it's product in such illegal way.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Due to excessive telemarketing phone calls, one solution is to leave the phone off the hook. This can lead to disasterous consequences when loved ones, business associates or the authorities have an emergency call to place to you.
Big deal. Mass is behind the times. We have had a no-call list in Georgia for several years now. Where was Slashdot when that happened??
In Connecticut I signed up for this list right when I moved into my new place last year. To date I have received not one telemarketing call. I was impressed, however, in how a nonprofit group I contributed to at my old address was able to track me down relatively quickly :). They still called but that was the only unsolicitated call I received.
It's nice not to have the phone ring at night.. At my old place I was hounded constantly..
www.lonseidman.com
The signup is broken... looks like this is the culprit:
The site www.madonotcall.govconnect.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
(From netcraft)
Then, smooth as silk, he continued, "Now, let's talk about some of your financial options in today's market."
I realized he had just scammed me out of about 5 minutes of my time, trying to set up a friendly relationship, so he could sell me investment advice. Grrrr!
"This conversation just ended," I said, and slammed the phone down. The next "pollster" who call will get that response at the beginning of the conversation.
Making trouble today for a better tomorrow...
Looks like Florida wants to charge it's residents $10 for the initial sign up to the DNC list and then $5 every year after that. So now I have to *pay* every year to make sure nobody calls me (provided the company actually decides to use the provided DNC information). What a crock.
...except for people in Mass. I believe more people than that signed up in the first month for Oklahoma's do-not-call list, and Oklahoma only has a population of about 3.5 million.
Supposedly a bit more than half the states, representing over %75 of the US population, now have do-not-call lists.
Click here for the DMA's side of the story.
Click here for my side of the story: I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING HEAR FROM YOU!!! Fucking goddamn marketing assholes, let me live in peace in my own house!!! (No sense mentioning I've been getting telemarketing calls at work *and* on my cell phone, pigfucking Florida Vacations assholes.)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
In Louisiana gambling was (and still is) explicitly prohibited by our constitution. So we don't have any gambling down here - the lottery, the casinos, the horse tracks, etc... are all defined as gaming instead....
I plan to file complaints on calls from politicians and non-profits also - even if they're exempt from the fines. And if enough people do this then maybe our politicians will see that there is desire to be free of political/charitible phone-spam and they'll either include it (not likely) or refrain from pissing the public off with their calls (not likely either - but hey, I can dream can't I?)
These DNC lists only work within limited jurisdictions. You'd think the national list would be the end-all solution, but you forget the laws mean nothing outside the US border.
I know some folks on the New York DNC list, and they are getting calls from Canada. The fines can't stick on the Canadians, and they don't care about the DNC lists. Solicators have two choices when the national DNC list takes foot:
1. Move to Canada
2. Move to Mexico
No I'm not trolling.
Just replace the text of their letter with the below and let the DMA send your message to Congress... ;-P
I am in favor of the creation of a national do-not-call list as proposed by the Federal Trade Commission.
I simply see it as the role of the federal government to encourage the destruction of this vile sector of our economy by putting its immense power behind creating, promoting and expanding a national do-not-call list. This list is certain to contain millions of people who might otherwise have been unnecessarily harassed by telemarketers. Telemarketers need these numbers to survive and grow. In a perfect world, this will lead to the abandonment of this invasive and disgusting form of marketing.
Professional telemarketers are supposedly trained to respect people's right to say "no," hang up, or be permanently taken off of a calling list. However, in practice this is very rarely the case. In addition, The Direct Marketing Association already has a national do-not--call list and requires all of its members to screen these names from their lists or suffer penalties, including possible expulsion from The DMA. This existing list, however, charges people to put their names on it and, as it is run by telemarketers, is simply not trustworthy.
In my view, the Federal government should be in the business of destroying this invasive, harassing, and duplicitous form of sales communication. It is my sincere hope that the FTC continues with this anti-telemarketing proposal.
So, where's the Do-Not-Email List?
Education is the silver bullet.
Hopefully this works nicely for those incredibly annoying autodialers as well, since it would be hard to "ask" them who they work for if it's not obvious. For those who've been lucky enough not to experience them, there are systems out which will call you and ask for either voice or keypad input - all the annoyance of getting a business's computerized phone system without even having to make a call.
I'm still wondering what constitutes "allowing" somebody to have my number. The local Blockbuster video store takes phone #'s as an identifier, as does the local mechanic/hardware store.
I don't mind when Blockbuster reminds me I've got an overdue tape, but the mechanic actually had a machine that calls you 1-2 weeks after you've had car service done and asks you to push buttons to indicate your satisfaction. Talk about annoying!
I'm always a little peaved when I hear people trying to show off thier slick lines they use on telemarketers, just before hanging up.
Telemarketers aren't stupid...
One of my more effective methods is simply acting like someone who can't assert themselves and are somewhat susceptible to thier sales pitches.
What really makes it work is projecting a very convincing helpless frustration. The more you can keep a telemarketer on the phone while making them feel bad about what they're doing, the better.
It's not as fun as acting retarded, or telling the newspaper lady you can't read (I had one lady who had a counter-reason for buying the paper, for every crazy reason for not buying the paper). She obviously knew I was joking, but she was really good.
Sometimes I've found them receptive, and I've had at length conversations about where they live, what they've done in the past, politics, etc.
Yet other times, I would tell them to hold, put the phone down for 5 minutes so I could watch TV. When I picked it up, they would still be on the phone. I put one person on hold 3 times (same call) before they hung up...
The point: Keep them on and demoralize them, or talk about personal issues and get them in trouble.
Save the slick lines and dumb jokes for pranks.
I purchased a device called a Screen Machine.
It plugs into your phone line and then you can plug in your phone or answering machine into it.
It is better than the telezapper. It plays the same tones as the telezzaper but what is even better is that it plays a recorded message (you can record your own if you wish). The message states that this number does not accept telemarketing calls and to take the name and phone number and put them on their do not call list. It invites all other users to press 5.
What's so great about the product is that in order to get though the person on the other end has to press '5' on their phone. This helps stop those annoying companies who think you want to hear their commercials left on your answering machine.
The phone doesn't ring unless someone presses '5'.
A little light goes on when someone is calling you but the phone stays silent. One day I receive 6 calls in the evening and none of them rang through.
No more telemarketers for me.
The cell phone company should be able to give you the calling number.
Also, I believe that on my bill, every single call is recorded.
Anyway, once you have the number, you should be able to find out who owns it and sue them. I recommend suing them in small claims court in your locality.
Just present your evidence that the call took place and was originated by the defendant.
The defendant will probably not show up, in which case the judge will certainly find against him/her/them and you'll get your 500 bucks. Throw in a little extra for missed work and research and so on.
Be sure you can produce the statute violated.
Note, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Just an idea.
AC
--
What's an accurate return address and who decides? To me if it is a company with an @aol.com, @yahoo.com or other free service, it isn't an accurate return address, because I can't find out anything about the actual company that sent the e-mail. I have heard of company's actually using those sites for their real e-mail, so if you call them accurate does that mean you have to opt out of mail@company.com, then company@aol.com, company@hotmail.com, company@yahoo.com? Better than 1234@nosite.com though.
- Political Calls
- Non-profits
- Anyone giving something away (like a sweepstakes)
- Anyone wanting to make an appointment (to sell you something.)
Which basically means just about anyone. Even those that would have been covered by this can get around it by offering something free. I got a Telezapper instead.. works like a charm. Best $40 I ever spent."I drank what?" - Socrates
A reference (see n.99) with a funny anecdote, making the same point. The article looks interesting, and discusses the next frontier, spam. Note this passage, which appears to confirm my gut instinct (rare but nice):
The opt-in DNC is different, but is it enough of a distinction? I don't think so, I believe the citizens must say "no" themselves; but we'll see eventually -- possibly first with political spam.
Get back there, cows!
I work in the telemarketing business. And I think there are some important things to remember here.
-Survey calls will not be stopped by this registry. Surveys aren't defined as telemarketing, since they aren't commercial calls.
-Recording a disconnected tone on your answering machine, or paying $50 for a TeleZapper that plays that plays the disconnected tone for you, will not work. Predictive dialers, the systems that send calls to the telemarketers, can easily be set to send disconnected tones through as well.
-Telemarketers calling from other countries don't need to follow the law. What's to stop telemarketing companies from moving operations outside the US? It's been done in practically every other business sector.
-And lest we forget, Big Business, which holds the government in its icey grip, makes extensive use of telemarketing. I have a feeling that the current law is as far as things will go.
*AmoHongos*