Verizon Fights Back Against Mobile Phone Spam

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon Fights Back Against Mobile Phone Spam

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sunday September 4, 2005 @09:28PM from the corporate-cheerleading-is-ok-this-time dept.

The Register is reporting that Verizon filed two separate lawsuits earlier this week against companies it claims spammed their customers with automated telemarketing calls. In addition to seeking a cease and desist, they are also apparently seeking "monetary damages."

124 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

phonetables by b100dian · 2005-09-04 21:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Please develop a filtering software w/ rules for phone numbers.
I will configure it myself:)

Just don't let anyone "Ping" me:)

--
gtkaml.org
1. Re:phonetables by blowdart · 2005-09-04 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Well for my phone there are filtering packages, for both calls and sms.
  However as I use a phone powered by WindowsMobile I doubt many /. readers would be able to avail themselves of the software <g>
2. Re:phonetables by b100dian · 2005-09-04 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Heh.. donate a piece of that and they'll show you how to run Linux on it, I bet:)
  
  Anyway, smart feature! Do callers sense that they're forwarded?
  
  --
  gtkaml.org
3. Re:phonetables by blowdart · 2005-09-04 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, they're pushed to the answering machine immediatly. Good for the mother in law :)
4. Re:phonetables by Bender+Unit+22 · 2005-09-05 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Just a filter that would only accept calls with IDs and/or only from those who are in the phones directory would be fine for me.
  
  Must be annoying for people on night shifts who still would like their family to be able to call them. One shouldn't have to unplug the cord or turning the phone off.
5. Re:phonetables by topper24hours · 2005-09-05 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds TERRIBLE! I would have to put every # of every associate of mine in a directory? What if they call from work? Mom's house? A pay phone desperately needing a ride? I pay almost $90/mo for my family's phones. What a bitch it would be if they were rendered this useless! Thanks for the suggestion though...
6. Re:phonetables by OhHellWithIt · 2005-09-06 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  When the /. headline said "spam", I thought they meant text messages, not junk telemarketing calls.
  FWIW, Verizon does offer some minimal protection against unwanted text messages. It is possible for the subscriber to list email addresses that are not allowed to send text messages. Unfortunately, they do not offer what is really needed, a list of senders who are allowed to send messages. (Not that this would be a perfect solution, but it would be one helluva lot better.)
  
  --
  "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
See? by Lord+Duran · 2005-09-04 21:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Even big evil corporations hate spammers.
1. Re:See? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldnt think so given the HUGE amount of spam coming out of their networks. Ive had to simply /dev/null all port 25 from verizon
2. Re:See? by AndroidCat · 2005-09-05 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  It'd be nice if they'd do something about a newsgroup spammer now via Verizon who's currently running a BI of 2200 in the 45 day window. (Even UUNET has whack-a-moled this guy a few times, ye gods!)
  
  --
  One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
3. Re:See? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  I wouldn't call most large corporations evil, merely amoral. There is a difference and an amoralist will often act in a "good" way (such as not murdering someone) because the costs (easy to get caught, severe punishment) outweigh the benefits (very few).
Easy solution to phone spam... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 21:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Simply charge the sender the full rate to send the message..

Well Duh!
1. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2005-09-04 21:51 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's what's being done in France and Belgium. But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number. In France, a cellphone number starts with 06, in Belgium, a cellphone number has 10 digits instead of 9. This means that someone who dials such a number knows he's calling a cellphone number, and therefore knows he's gonna be hit with a higher rate.
  
  In the US, if you charged people more to dial a number that looks exactly like a landline phone number, you'd quickly have a slew of lawsuits from people who stayed on the phone for hours, only to discover it wasn't a normal phone number and they're broke or something. That's why the cost is shared in the US: the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
2. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by rd4tech · 2005-09-04 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  why not move the cell phone numbers to a separate area code then?
3. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by hattig · 2005-09-04 22:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Even simpler, just make messages (of any sort - SMS, MMS) sender-pays-all.
  
  Many home phones are getting this functionality as well, so even in the UK (Mobile numbers start 07) you can't guarantee in the long run that you will be messaging a mobile or a phone number, although when you are it will be obvious!
  
  That way you can still have your mobile number smushed into the rest of the nation's telephone number scheme, without paying however much to receive spam texts, and sharing the cost of telephone calls.
4. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by E8086 · 2005-09-04 22:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference."
  
  Close, the caller pays what they would pay if they called out of their area code which is why I agree with the other reply;
  
  "why not move the cell phone numbers to a separate area code then?"
  
  Happens enough when someone has a 'normal' line and a cell both in the same area code, one's a free local call but the other I have to pay for even if my 'normal' line bill says free calls in same area code. It would be nice to know which calls I'm going to have to pay for, it's not much but it might eventually add up to something. "Land-lines" can keep 636 and cell phones get 939.
  What's with having to pay for incoming calls? They use up your plan minutes yet you don't have any control over when someone calls you, yes you could always not answer, but someone will probably consider it rude. With the nice high monthly plans with extra long contracts you'd think there would be at least another option with "free nights and weekends" how about free nights or weekends and free incoming calls, I think a free same carrier calls option exists.
  
  As for the call spammers, they should be lined up and spammed with big cans of spam by the "can you hear me now?" guy, or a least a recording.
  whack...can you hear me now?...thud...can you hear me now?...ow!, my random body part...can you hear me now?
  
  Would this be considered "stealing" Verizon's bandwidth?
  
  --
  F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
5. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by MichaelSmith · 2005-09-04 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number
  This is mad. How can you people put up with this situation? Here in .au mobiles start with 04 and you expect to pay more.
  
  Apparently in the USA I can call your mobile phone and you will have to pay for part of the call. Mad.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
6. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by the_unknown_soldier · 2005-09-04 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  That is crazy... In Australia home numbers start in 04, and are longer than normal numbers.... This means there are no area codes for mobiles, and everybody knows what they are calling! What idiot came up with the idea of not seperating mobile numbers? It just seems like logic... You call somebody who is in a remote area, you pay. So people on Verizon are actually paying to receive spam smses? Maybe Verizon/FCC need to be looking at their policies instead of suing spammers. I get most of my phone spam from carriers at the moment anyway! Damn them!
7. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by animaal · 2005-09-04 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  Where I live, you can tell if a number is for a mobile phone, but not which company issued it. Also, calls to phones on other companies cost more. To solve this, every time your mobile dials a mobile on another network, you hear a beep before the other phone starts ringing. It gives you a chance to cancel the call.
  
  It could work in this situation too.
8. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Sancho · 2005-09-04 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, in the US, people get screwed both ways. If I use a cell to make a call to a friend's cell, we both get charged. Even if it's the same cell company (unless your plan has "free mobile-to-mobile" minutes). Free incoming calls only makes sense, but due to the current infrastructure, it's not feasible.
9. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  The problem in the US is that area codes are assigned by http://www.nanpa.com/ who receives its direction from the FCC and the telecom industry of the US and other particpating countries. When I inquired about this many years ago I was informed that the FCC or a court had ruled that area codes CANNOT be assigned by technology (i.e. cell, pager, fax, etc.) because this is in essence telecom discrimination.
10. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by r00t_of_all_evils · 2005-09-05 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  But there's a simple reason why it works there and not in the US: it's easy for people to recognize a cell phone number.
  
  In my area some landline prefixes are 234, 235, 265, 472, and 473. Cell phone prefixes are 258, 259, 262, 267, 277, and 377. You never see a landline with a cellphone prefix, or a cellphone with a landline prefix. The only grey area here might be someone who has call forwarding from a landline to a cellphone. If they can't tell the difference between dialing a 234 (landline) and 267 (cellphone), then they have no business being in the telemarketing business, let alone even using a phone in the first place.
  
  --
  God is real, unless declared integer.
11. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by IdleTime · 2005-09-05 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, cell phone prizing is a legalized scam set in system and protected legally. It's basically the phone companies pandoras box financially. Only in USA are companies valued higher than it's citizenz and there is virtually no limit for what they can do and get away with. Disgusting.
  
  --
  If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
12. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by MysteriousPreacher · 2005-09-05 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds similar to the way GSM phones tend to work in Europe. I can take my Irish phone abroad (let's say to Spain) but if someone in Ireland calls me, they will pay for a regular call to a mobile but I pay the cost of the international connection.
  
  Strange though that you can have this situation without even having to leave the US.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
13. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Detritus · 2005-09-05 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  The costs would be immense. A huge amount of software and hardware would have to be modified and reconfigured. There probably aren't enough 3-digit area codes left for all of the cellular phone subscribers. Are you going to memorize all of the new cellular-only area codes?
  Most European telephone systems were designed with a different set of principles for billing and numbering, which makes it much easier for them to implement "caller pays".
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
14. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Detritus · 2005-09-05 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  What's with having to pay for incoming calls?
  You're using cellular network bandwidth (air-time), which is scarce and expensive. Someone has to pay for it, why not the person who made the choice to connect to the telephone system via a cellular network?
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
15. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by fuzzybunny · 2005-09-05 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but this is called "international roaming". Calls to an Eirecom (?) phone in Germany from a Telefonica landline in Spain result in:
  
  -The telefonica caller being charged internationally to call an Irish cell phone
  -You being charged the additional "roaming" fees to re-route the call. These can be quite hefty.
  
  I have a Swisscom phone (in Switzerland, duh), and we do not have incoming call charges for the entire area of Swisscom coverage (throughout Switzerland, duh.) I believe the same applies to fixed regions, usually the country or parts thereof, for other formerly national carriers (T-Mobile, etc.) or private carriers within national areas. I think the national borders as a limit to how far you can receive unlimited incoming are more due to convention and technical/service evolution within pre-existing markets than anything else.
  
  Naturally this changes if you have a carrier that charges for incoming calls, such as (I think, but am not 100% sure) UK Vodafone, regardless of whether you're in-country or abroad.
  
  The US cell phone market is just extended throughout the country, and is not as insular between borders as in Europe, but rather between providers (Nextel, Sprint, whatever.)
  
  Plus, the US is a whole bunch bigger... :)
  
  --
  Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
16. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by squiggleslash · 2005-09-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  This is about text messages, as I understand it, so the whole debate about "caller pays" concerning landline interconnect charges isn't really that relevent.
  From the standpoint of a mobile operator, the "costs" applied to text messages are really to do with equipment, not bandwidth. It costs a phone company as much, if not more, to support text messaging on a landline than it does on a mobile (because mobiles already have the hardware built in, whereas landline text messaging - which is virtually non-existant in the US, sending is possible if awkward, and receiving just doesn't happen)
  Really, Verizon can stop this from being a major problem for their customers by just not charging for incoming messages. Given customers cannot block unwanted incoming messages (they can block all messages, including those they want, but not easily), as they can incoming calls, it's always been an absurdity that the receiver pays for those messages. Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile, etc, need to start charging sensibly, and adopt the basic attitude that if someone cannot reasonably control something from happening, there's no way in which they should be charged for it.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
17. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Dr_LHA · 2005-09-05 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile, etc, need to start charging sensibly
  Out of that list, only Verizon charge for an incoming SMS. They used to charge 2c a SMS, but have now upped it to 10c. No other cell phone company does this as far as I know.
18. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by squiggleslash · 2005-09-05 03:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'm British, and I've moved to the US. Here's my take:
  For about $60 (including taxes), a mobile phone subscription in the US generally includes about 500 minutes (albiet with calls charged by the minute, not the second, and with you charged for listening to the other end ring, albeit only if the call is ultimately connected - this probably means that a comparable UK tariff would be 300-400 anytime minutes), unlimited nights and weekends, and (increasingly) unlimited in-network mobile to mobile calling. Calls that get diverted to voicemail are not charged for, either to the phone owner or the caller. Just as in the UK, a mobile on such a tariff can be used anywhere in the country and all minutes can be used to call anywhere in the country. Though, in this case, the country has five times the population and 100 times the square footage. That's generally the type of tariff most Americans subscribe to.
  There's a lot of experimenting with prepay here, and interestingly one direction they're going down is simply replicating these types of tariff as prepay tariffs rather than only offering pay-as-you-go. Despite a lot of interest in making it work, the "mobile pays" model really kills pay-as-you-go at the moment.
  To me, having gotten used to it, I have to say I'd rather have the American tariff than the (current) UK tariffs I've seen. It's essentially worry-free, I can completely - without impacting anyone else - replace my landline with a mobile phone (because friends and family are not hit with absurdly high charges when they call me, and because there are more minutes in my tariff than I can use in practice: it's almost an unmetered connection, especially when the social calls, the calls that go on for hours, are generally on the weekends anyway.) I don't feel like I could do that in the UK because you just don't get enough minutes, and because anyone calling you is going to have to pay through the nose to talk to you.
  The downside is that a lot of US employers expect you to give them your mobile number and (and this infuriates me) will call it in preference to your home number. The other downside is that pay-as-you-go, while available, just isn't terribly practical: the bar for getting mobile service is a little higher than it is in the UK.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
19. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by squiggleslash · 2005-09-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  Alas, that's not true. T-Mobile charges 5c per incoming SMS. Cingular charges 10c. AT&T Wireless, until they were absorbed, were pretty much the only major US operator that didn't charge for incoming SMS messages. Cingular doesn't charge AT&T customers who are still on old AT&T plans for incoming messages, but those who have certainly are charged.
  On a different note: Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... Re:Easy solution to phone spam... (Score:2) by Dr_LHA (30754) Neutral on 2005-09-05 11:13 (#13483199) ( http://slashdot.org/ ) Verizon, Cingular, T-Mobile, etc, need to start charging sensibly Out of that list, only Verizon charge for an incoming SMS. They used to charge 2c a SMS, but have now upped it to 10c. No other cell phone company does this as far as I know. [ Reply to This ] Preview Comment Re:Easy solution to phone spam... (Score:) by squiggleslash (241428) on 2005-09-05 11:19 ( Last Journal: 2005-09-05 1:05 ) Alas, that's not true. T-Mobile charges 5c per incoming SMS. Cingular charges 10c. AT&T Wireless, until they were absorbed, were pretty much the only major US operator that didn't charge for incoming SMS messages. Cingular doesn't charge AT&T customers who are still on old AT&T plans for incoming messages, but those who have certainly are charged. -- RIAA vs MPAA, Copyrights vs Patents, etc [slashdot.org] [ Reply to This ] Post Comment Name squiggleslash [ Log Out ] Subject Comment Alas, that's not true. T-Mobile charges 5c per incoming SMS. Cingular charges 10c. AT&T Wireless, until they were absorbed, were pretty much the only major US operator that didn't charge for incoming SMS messages. Cingular doesn't charge AT&T customers who are still on old AT&T plans for incoming messages, but those who have certainly are charged. (Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!) No Karma Bonus No Subscriber Bonus Post Anonymously Allowed HTML
  
  URLs http://example.com/ will auto-link a URL Important Stuff # Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal. [ faq | code | awards | journals | subscribe | older stuff | rob's page | preferences | submit story | advertising | supporters | past polls | topics | about | bugs | tech jobs | hof ] What is algebra, exactly? Is it one of those three-cornered things? -- J.M. Barrie All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2005 OSTG. rss
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
20. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by myov · 2005-09-05 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's why the cost is shared in the US: the caller pays for whatever is normally paid to call a landline phone, and you pay the difference.
  
  So I pay the cost as part of my bill because the spammers can't look up a list of cell exchanges?
  
  --
  I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
21. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by eyeye · 2005-09-05 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  There probably aren't enough 3-digit area codes left for all of the cellular phone subscribers. Are you going to memorize all of the new cellular-only area codes?
  
  Erm.. whats the point in having *area* codes for *mobile* phones.
  
  --
  Bush and Blair ate my sig!
22. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by eyeye · 2005-09-05 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Do you guys in the USA also pay for recieving (snail) mail. Someone has to pay for it after all :-)
  
  --
  Bush and Blair ate my sig!
23. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Detritus · 2005-09-05 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Erm.. whats the point in having *area* codes for *mobile* phones.
  The USA is a big country, with many telephone companies. Area codes are needed for routing.
  Area codes are an integral part of the NANP (North American Numbering Plan)
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
24. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by tftp · 2005-09-05 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  For about $60 (including taxes)...
  $32 for me, as an example, with Sprint.
  ...about 500 minutes...
  About 120 minutes any time, and some 120+ minutes weekends. I never use that much anyway, so this is a good plan for me.
  because anyone calling you is going to have to pay through the nose to talk to you
  Yes, the US system wins here. Anyone can call me, but if I don't think it's worth using my minutes I will call him back on a landline, or just politely bring the call to an end. It is better this way because I want to judge, myself, if the call is important or not. Otherwise the other person will be making this decision, and why to have a phone then if other people are reluctant to call you?
  The downside is that a lot of US employers expect you to give them your mobile number and (and this infuriates me) will call it in preference to your home number.
  But you know, you are entitled to submit an expense report, and the employer will pay for that call. You don't need to pay for it yourself.
25. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by Dr_LHA · 2005-09-05 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Cingular doesn't charge AT&T customers who are still on old AT&T plans for incoming messages, but those who have certainly are charged.
  Ah shit. I stand corrected. I guess I'm sticking on my AT&T contract for now. Charging for incoming SMS's is insane.
26. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by nxtw · 2005-09-05 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  There is no obvious differnece. With number portability, constantly changing prefix assignments (including 4-digit prefixes/1000-number exchanges), and such, there is no reasonable way of being sure if the number you are calling is a landline, cellular phone, or something else. I have seen at least one case where the same exchange was either used for both cellular and landlines. The exchange was assigned to Sprint, and the person had Sprint landline and mobile service.
  Phone companies that do not use an entire 10000 allocation often allow the rest to be reassigned. For example, 330-475 is owned by Choice One Communications, but 475-(2,3,4,5,6,9) are owned by T-Mobile.
27. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by petermgreen · 2005-09-05 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  afaict with the current us system your call gets routed first to the area code your mobile number is in and then rerouted back accross the us to where your phone actually is. doesn't sound any more efficiant than just having a few codes that are specifically for mobiles.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
28. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by zippthorne · 2005-09-05 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  Are there any cell phone companies left that offer plans without "free nationwide long-distance?"
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
29. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by nEJC76 · 2005-09-05 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Number recognition works, but not for long...
  
  EU is pushing hard for "Number Portability", this means that a subscriber would have same number when migrating from mobile, land-line and/or other providers... :(
30. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by squiggleslash · 2005-09-06 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  But you know, you are entitled to submit an expense report, and the employer will pay for that call. You don't need to pay for it yourself.
  Yeah, right, because I not only want my employer calling me, but I should be punished for getting called.
  Or is combing my bill calculating expenses and putting together a report considered fun these days?
  Fuck 'em. If they want to call me, they should call me at home.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
31. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by jrumney · 2005-09-06 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  For about $60 (including taxes), a mobile phone subscription in the US generally includes about 500 minutes $60 = GBP32.50. So sandwiched in between 3's Text&Talk 600 and Video,Text&Talk 700 plans. The only real difference between US and UK pricing is that in the UK it is more expensive to phone a mobile from a landline.
32. Re:Easy solution to phone spam... by squiggleslash · 2005-09-06 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, not remotely like either of those plans. I'm amazed anyone would think they're similar or that the "only difference" is the cost of calling a mobile from a landline.
  Remember the full sentence, including the part you snipped, is this:
  For about $60 (including taxes), a mobile phone subscription in the US generally includes about 500 minutes (albiet with calls charged by the minute, not the second, and with you charged for listening to the other end ring, albeit only if the call is ultimately connected - this probably means that a comparable UK tariff would be 300-400 anytime minutes), unlimited nights and weekends, and (increasingly) unlimited in-network mobile to mobile calling.
  I typically use around 500-1,000 nights and weekends every month, in addition to around 300 regular minutes. On Three's tariff, I'd be paying much, much, more than $60 (the cheapest, from what I can see, would be their "60GPB Video Talk&Text 1300" plan)
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Monetary damages by FirienFirien · 2005-09-04 21:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

How can they claim monetary damages? Presumably they got complaints from their clients - but their clients would have footed the support bill.

--
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious
1. Re:Monetary damages by nacturation · 2005-09-04 21:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Punitive, not necessarily compensation.
  
  --
  Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
2. Re:Monetary damages by E8086 · 2005-09-04 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  "How can they claim monetary damages?"
  
  That's easy, customer not registered with or not on the don't bother calling me list for 31+ days reviews bill and sees unwanted charges or receives telemarketing calls and calls customer support claiming the calls were unsolicited telemarketing calls. Customer service rep agrees and credits customers account leaving part of the cost of the call unpaid and the company takes a loss. After a while all those refunds are going to add up and the company wants to recover the losses.
  
  --
  F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
3. Re:Monetary damages by rooster9 · 2005-09-04 23:33 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  "customer not registered with or not on the don't bother calling me list for 31+ days"... What are you talking about? The do-not-call list doesn't apply to cell phones... The FCC has lond held it illegal to spam cell phones.
4. Re:Monetary damages by hhawk · 2005-09-05 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  And they at least had to spend extra time on customer support, with probably fairly high per hour rates, to explain things to those customers, as well as costs for training the staff to handle this situation.
  
  Their network would have had x% extra usage which probably had their network resource staff asking for more hardware and other resources...
  
  They may have had to buy additional equipment to handle the unexpected volume of messages, etc...
  
  --
  http://www.hawknest.com/
5. Re:Monetary damages by E8086 · 2005-09-05 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  It's #10 in the donotcall faq, cell phones can be reagistered and it's illegal to use automated dialers to call(spam) cell phones, but manual dialing is still allowed.
  
  --
  F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
Telemarketing is just another job by ReformedExCon · 2005-09-04 21:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are many jobs that very few people are willing to do because the pay and working conditions are so poor. Telemarketing is one of those jobs. But, as they say, you can't have a world full of doctors without an army of janitors. Someone's got to do the work that no one wants to do. And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.

If a telemarketing company is barred from using automated phone dialers to make calls, then they ought to be taken to task for it. I don't think any one will argue with that. But these companies typically have a couple dozen people on staff who can be trained to punch in phone numbers all day long, so it's not like they couldn't just do the same thing manually. In fact, I wish they would do it that way (it would get rid of that annoying split second of silence before you realize you've been caught).

I'm lucky to have been able to avoid falling so low as to have to work one of those jobs, but there are many people who choose to do so. They aren't the ones who you ought to aim your rage at, but at the companies who hire them.

--
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
1. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by DingerX · 2005-09-04 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Uh...
  Telemarketing sucks, but nobody said the poor schmuck on the phone was getting rich. That schmuck's bosses are, and possibly the private company that's administering her/his prison is. These are the people we sue, and the people we dislike intensely.
  Telemarketers don't punch in phone numbers. That's too low-tech. computers can dial numbers. Computers can determine (more or less) if there's a human on the line. Then computers can determine which script reader has just finished a call, so as to maximize the efficiency of the schmuck.
  You can have a recording do it too, and some do (by the way, I ain't ever giving to anybody's election campaign that uses a robodialer. So that means, I ain't giving money to politicians), but far and above it's much more effective to use humans. Calling someone up to listen to a recording really really pisses that person off, unless they're so lonely the cold tones of a machine are welcome relief from their miserable existence. And most of those lonely suckers learn to speak back to machines.
2. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by bloodredsun · 2005-09-04 22:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers. The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones. Using these two technologies together means that you can simultaneously call thousands at the same time with no worker involvement, obvously a huge boon to SPIT companies but a pain in the arse for everyone else. This could have a greater impact than spam as spam doesn't disturb me when my computer is off or intrude when I am at home.
  
  I don't know how it works elsewhere but in the UK, auto-dialers are allowed but with the restriction that if the person being dialed picks up and no one from the call centre makes the call live within 2 seconds then the call is dropped. This means that if you answer the phone and get a strange dead line, you know it's a telemarketer and you can happily put the phone down without having to convince them that you don't need double glazing/conservatory/new power supplier.
  
  And for the record, I once worked as a telemarketer for a business to business travel provider that only ever called during working hours and to people whose job it was to speak to me (and I dialed my own numbers - the company didn't like auto-dialers). Even then I didn't stick it long, as it was low paid and it did suck.
3. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Darkon · 2005-09-04 22:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Telemarketing is just another job
  
  You're telling me that scamming vulnerable and trusting elderly folks into buying stuff they don't need or making dodgy investments is 'just another job'?
4. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong! You take a job and accept the consequences that come with the job. Do you think soldiers in Iraq right now are confused as to why an enemy is trying to kill them? But it's just a job! Why are they shooting at us?
  
  I have met and talked "at" four telemarketers (not "with" because they were not intelligible). Every single one was a lazy, short cited, big goals but no plans type of person. Every single one! "I'm going to be a doctor, but right now I am 27, working for $8/hr as a telemarketer, think it's funny scamming old people, party hard and drink harder every weekend. But I'm so smart and will make it big, even though I don't get off my fat ass to work towards any of my goals". One guy even terrorized people in person for getting mad at him on the phone! He would visit peoples' homes after work and yell obscenities at the people through the door! He was quite surprised to hear my response of non-approval, "I'd shoot you if it was me".
  
  I have absolutely no respect for telemarketers. Go get a job as a janitor, or stock shelves. Most of these types of people take a telemarketers position because that's the type of people they are.
5. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by pintomp3 · 2005-09-04 23:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  you're right. same goes for those in organized crime. they are simply trying to make a living. if not them, then the crime bosses would hire someone else. /sarcasm funny thing is, you're not even making them out to be like meter-maids, which is an argument with a case. you are making them out to be garbagemen or something that society can't do without. perhaps you need to be interrupted during dinner with sales pitches, but most people can do without this service. i think you need a little more reform.
6. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by ben_rh · 2005-09-04 23:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.
  
  I don't see how this choice could ever arise, but I for one would take the meal and run.
7. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by manavendra · 2005-09-05 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  From the article, the "companies made hundreds of thousands of calls to cell phone customers using pre-recorded messages and auto-dialers in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as well as state laws".
  
  I thought that they were complaining about "pre-recorded messages" more than auto-dialers.
  
  Also from the article: Under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations it is illegal for telemarketers to use automated diallers to call cell phone numbers
  
  --
  http://efil.blogspot.com/
8. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Stiletto · 2005-09-05 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please. Somebody call the Waaaaaaaahmbulance!
  
  You can't compare janitors and telemarketers. Last I checked, janitors were not paid to annoy people at dinnertime, scam the elderly, and defraud mobile phone users.
  
  Telemarketers have no excuse. There is plenty of other low-wage work for when you are at the bottom of your rope, ethical work that doesn't involve the stuff that telemarketers do.
9. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by typical · 2005-09-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  There are many jobs that very few people are willing to do because the pay and working conditions are so poor. Telemarketing is one of those jobs. But, as they say, you can't have a world full of doctors without an army of janitors. Someone's got to do the work that no one wants to do.
  
  No, I don't agree. Just because a company has made a job available does not mean that that job should exist.
  
  And I sympathize with those people who have to choose between working a terrible telemarketing job and eating.
  
  I sympathize too with anyone who is considering getting a telemarketing job. They're probably having a rough time. That said, I still don't feel any need for a telemarketing industry.
  
  --
  Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
10. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by bjbyrne · 2005-09-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  The issues with auto-dialers is that it is illegal to use them to ring cell phones not normal ones
  
  Florida has had a state law regarding computerized autodialers that called random or sequenced numbers.
  
  Doesn't matter if it is cell phone or not.
11. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2005-09-05 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that it's not the fault of the schmuck on the other end of the line, but (primarily) the schmuck's boss. But it's silly to compare telemarketers and janitors, for the simple reason that we need janitors; we don't need telemarketers. Janitors perform a useful service by keeping things clean. Telemarketers are parasites.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
12. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 04:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Many companies resort to this when it comes to old folks with no one around or relatives who don't have the time to inspect the work.
  
  Elderly getting their roofs done will often get low quality workmanship with high quality prices because they are not capable of climbing onto the roof to inspect the work.
  
  People only cutting the grass the elderly home ridden person can see from their windows and getting paid to cut it all.
  
  There's very little that can be done to people once you've paid out the money to them. And like I said not all elderly have a son or daughter that can be there as the work is completed or during the work to see that everything is done properly (if they can even tell the difference in most cases).
  
  Scam artists exist everywhere, and a lot of them have been in business for years preying on the elderly to keep them afloat.
13. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by lysergic.acid · 2005-09-05 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  you're totally right. i'm currently living with a medium to low income family in chicago right now. they've got 2 and a half working adults supporting a 4 person household, and they've just gotten on debt arbitration to avoid bunkruptcy. why? because my friend's mom is terminally ill.
  
  she has a very rare uncurable blood disease and has had to have several operations and in the past few years has been at the hospital more often than home. health insurance runs out eventually(one of the shortcomings of privatized healthcare), and our state-funded health plans just aren't adequately funded. so they're going broke. on top of that, because my friend's mother is on heavy medication and is not very mobile and she's home by herself most of the time. someone who has had a morphine pump implanted and is heavily medicated(dilaudids and other powerful drugs) cannot always think straight. and under heavy stress and depression her behavior is even more irradic.
  
  so these unsolicited callers call her all day and sign her up for credit cards she can't be trusted to use sensibly and ends up signing up for a bunch of life-insurance policies she can't afford and shouldn't be signing up for, and she's also developed a compulsive shopping disorder due to her mental state. telemarketers capitalize on individuals like this--older individuals who are easy to con out of their money when you present your product in a very enticing way. these are pensions and insruance plans that are being looted.
  
  telemarketers/door to door insurance salesmen, like drug dealers, aren't just making money at the expense of their customers. they're taking directly out of the mouths of babies/children whose parents are prone to compulsive behaviors. one drug dealer i know atleast has realized this, he's in his mid twenties, has done time for his actions, and has cleaned up. most telemarketing companies, scammers, etc. will never be punished for their actions and will never feel any guilt about their business methods.
14. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Pig+Hogger · 2005-09-05 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Spamming, too. And writing parking tickets. Or collecting taxes.
15. Re:Telemarketing is just another job by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-06 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  Well the shills that hire telemarketers are nameless faceless cowards who put a little girls on their office frontend to cop the abuse they deserve. Does our army send little girls to the battlefront in the hope enemy soldiers will feel bad about shooting them? Every time you see little girls being abused at the counter, understand that it's because a grown (usually male) manager is hiding like a snivelling coward behind her petticoat (usually in a back room reading a newspaper).
  
  That split second of silence is your friend. It is your cue to hang up, which you should be able to do with absolutely no discomfort. Here are a few of my prompts to hang up immediately:
  
  * if I have to say hello more than twice before receiving a response
  * if the call is for a fictional tennant then they settle for me
  * if I get called Mr Caller
  * if the first thing I hear is a recorded message
  * if at any stage I'm told I've been "selected"
  
  Just hangup, immediately. Save yourself the hassle of arguing or making excuses. Hang up on the time stealer and hang onto the money they were planning on taking from you for something you don't need.
earlier this week by frovingslosh · 2005-09-04 21:36 · Score: 3, Funny

earlier this week ????
We have a credability problem here.

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
1. Re:earlier this week by Afecks · 2005-09-04 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  I guess they meant yesterday.
2. Re:earlier this week by frovingslosh · 2005-09-05 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  They don't file lawsuits on Sunday.
  
  --
  I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Re:phonetables Gandhi Says..... by Slashdot_Gandhi · 2005-09-04 21:39 · Score: 0

A certain degree of physical harmony and comfort is necessary, but above a certain level it becomes a hindrance instead of a help. Therefore the ideal of creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them seems to be a delusion and a snare.

Mahatma Gandhi
Where do they get their numbers? by xiando · 2005-09-04 21:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Just a reality check for anyone who thinks there is such a thing as "Free SMS services" on the Internet: If you are offered something "free" on the Internet where you have to give away your mobile phone number then you can pretty much be sure that you WILL be paying a price in the form of spam. There is no thing as a free lunch...

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
1. Re:Where do they get their numbers? by fmwap · 2005-09-04 21:58 · Score: 0
  
  Well, we USED to be able to run our own free SMS services that only cost airtime via kannel, but Verizon quickly upgraded their network to stop people from bypassing their overly-inflated rates.
  
  Fuck Verisign, er...Verizon
2. Re:Where do they get their numbers? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 22:06 · Score: 0
  
  I use "free" sms systems and never get spam, nor do the people I send sms messages to.
  
  But we do use sprint, I've never actually gotten any spam, except from my own bank about a credit card because they had my mobile listed as home, which was quickly fixed.
  
  Other than that, none.
  
  I'm guessing it has more to do with people getting phone number lists in other means than "free sms" sites.
3. Re:Where do they get their numbers? by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-09-05 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of free SMS services... I've used a few.. never had any spam.. but then it's illegal to spam mobiles in this country :)
I wish... by connah0047 · 2005-09-04 21:47 · Score: 5, Funny

I wish I had to deal with phone spam instead of bad service. I signed a two year contract with Verizon and all I say on my phone all the time is, "Can you hear me now?" ...guess you can't sue them for false advertising.
1. Re:I wish... by isotpist · 2005-09-05 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  I have Vodaphone in Germany and I get both Spam (usually just from vodaphone itself) and bad service (missed calls hat never appear on the phone).
2. Re:I wish... by alanshot · 2005-09-05 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  No SH**! I love how they tout the fact that you can supposedly get your calls pretty much anywhere with those annoying commercials.
  
  Then a while back the CEO (I think) of Verizon made some statement that it was foolish to think/assume/whatever that your cell phone would work inside your house due to technology issues (signal strength, etc).
  
  I am one of those users. in a suburb, not too far out into the country... cant get crap for cell phone coverage in my house. gotta go out into the yard to (somewhat) guarantee good enough service to not have to yell to be heard.
  
  crappy cell phones...
And presumably by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2005-09-04 21:54 · Score: 3, Funny

In addition to seeking a cease and desist, they are also apparently seeking "monetary damages."

Verizon will certainly redistribute the "monetary damages" to spammed customers, right? </sarcasm>

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It's not just Verizon customers... by DeathAndTaxes · 2005-09-04 22:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I got a phone call that was automated and in spanish about 2 weeks ago. I googled the number and came up with this page:

http://www.payphone-directory.org/discussion/sub2. html

Its not just Verizon customers. I can only hope that I (as a Sprint customer) receive some sort of "umbrella" benefit from this.
1. Re:It's not just Verizon customers... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · 2005-09-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  I've had several messages left on my voice mail for my Cingular cellphone that were from the resort company named in the Fine Article.
  
  Automated of course. Hopefully Cingular jumps on the bandwagon and sues these bastards as well.
  
  --
  "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
seeking damages? by calyptos · 2005-09-04 22:17 · Score: 1

"... seeking 'monetary damages'"

What kind of company seeks damages?

--
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
If only European operators did this.. by Mark+Gillespie · 2005-09-04 22:33 · Score: 0

Orange UK, don't give two hoots that I constantly get companies phoning and texting me with "unmissable mobile phone upgrade offers". Most of these companies even pretend they are in some way asscioated with Orange, which makes it even worse..
1. Re:If only European operators did this.. by hattig · 2005-09-04 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but at least you aren't paying 5p a go to get shit from these companies.
  
  Ladbrokes kept texting me, the cunts. I never even told them they could, I haven't even had any dealings with them in the past. Hence, I will never be using Ladbrokes if I ever place a bet in my life.
2. Re:If only European operators did this.. by TheRaven64 · 2005-09-04 22:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is less common in the UK because it costs more to call mobiles than land lines, and less of an irritation because it costs nothing to receive a 'phone call or text. If it is irritating you register with the TPS and you have legal recourse against anyone 'phoning to with unsolicited sales or marketing calls. Unsolicited commercial SMS is already illegal under the Privacy and Electronic Communications EC Directive, and so you already have legal recourse there.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:If only European operators did this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 23:29 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Orange UK have a procedure for dealing with Text spam: just forward the complete message it to 7726 and Orange either blocks the sender from sending more, or blocks access to any premium or national rate numbers mentioned (not sure which)
  
  <URL:http://www.orange.co.uk/about/contact/spam/>
4. Re:If only European operators did this.. by Tim+Browse · 2005-09-05 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  it costs nothing to receive a 'phone call or text.
  
  Good news everyone! You can receive 'reverse charge' texts in the UK now! Yet another reason not to give any company your mobile number.
  See this news story for an example - although I have to admit, I had real trouble digging up any sympathy for anyone who ordered the Crazy Frog ringtone (see the comment from 'Gemma, Lancashire' below the story, and then the comment immediately following it :->). That's just a form of evolution in action, I'm afraid.
5. Re:If only European operators did this.. by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-09-05 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yes this should be illegal. It is *not* obvious what you're signing up to when you download these ringones... it's targeted at non-technical teenagers (anyone with any technical knowledge will just download the thing for free from the internet) who are the least likely to be reading the small print.
6. Re:If only European operators did this.. by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-09-05 00:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Presumably they report the offenders as they have broken the law - text spam is illegal in the UK.
7. Re:If only European operators did this.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 00:48 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Vodafone UK and O2 have a similar scheme - the number you forward it to is the same on all networks. It's easy to remember because it spells out SPAM on the phone keypad.
Auto Dialer exceptions by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 23:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Apparently
"calls from companies with which you have an established business relationship" are allowed by automatic dialers...
http://www.dmaconsumers.org/telephoneconsumerprote ctionact.html
1. Re:Auto Dialer exceptions by pintomp3 · 2005-09-04 23:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The part of i wonder about is how far can you stretch an "established business relationship". i bought something from you or the company you used to be or the a company you are related to years ago? how do i end this relationship? it's like getting calls from some drunken one-night-stand, her sisters, and her kids for rest of your life (no, u'r not the father).
Number portability. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 23:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

Here in the USA we have number portability.
You guys in other countries may not know that here one can transfer a cell phone number to a land line and a land line to a cell phone.

This means you cannot have a simple "area code" for cell phones. It's much more complicated and liberated than your closed systems.

Get over it.
It's just a database issue, that's all.
1. Re:Number portability. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-04 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  Here in the USA we have number portability.
  You guys in other countries may not know that here one can transfer a cell phone number to a land line and a land line to a cell phone.
  
  Yes, we have that in Europe too, on a temporary basis at least, so what ? In that case indeed the person called has to pay the extra charge instead of the caller. Because the caller has no way to know his call will be transfered to a mobile phone. But the callee deliberately chose so, the default situation is you don't have to pay an extra charge to be called.
  
  This means you cannot have a simple "area code" for cell phones.
  
  Why not, as you say after it's just a database problem, so why would that be impossible ? The vast majority of numbers will stay in their initial category and the relatively few numbers transfered would use the current system you have.
  
  It's much more complicated and liberated than your closed systems.
  
  hahaha I can see for sure that's much more complicated at least, and dumb I would had.
  
  Get over it.
  
  I'm not the one paying to be spammed, YOU are the one in need to get over it.
2. Re:Number portability. by Tony+Hoyle · 2005-09-05 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  So you're happy to keep paying for your spam, so you can keep the ability to transfer your cell phone to a landline at some unspecified point in the future, if you ever do.
  
  Every country has number portability, but *only* the US won't let you know that you're calling a mobile so you get slammed with the higher charges.
3. Re:Number portability. by ahillen · 2005-09-05 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, many countries that have special 'area codes' for mobiles also have number portability, but only for switching between different mobile providers. On the other hand, if you use standard area codes for your mobile phones, doesn't that mean you have to change your cell phone number when you are moving out of the area? If you have a separate numbering scheme for mobile phones, there is no need for that, because there is nothing that ties the number to a special region...
  
  You guys in other countries may not know that here one can transfer a cell phone number to a land line and a land line to a cell phone.
  
  Obviously you can't do that, but with some providers in Germany you can get an additional fixed line phone number for your mobile (or transfer your old land line number), and then people can call you on your mobile for land line prices. And you have the choice if you only want to be reachable with this number when you are at home (=1-2 km around the address you provided) or wherever you are. In the latter case you have to pay some fees for forwarding if you are outside your 'home zone'.
  
  It's much more complicated and liberated than your closed systems.
  
  It's neither, it's just different, and what is the better system depends on your preferences...
4. Re:Number portability. by GreyPoopon · 2005-09-05 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  So you're happy to keep paying for your spam, so you can keep the ability to transfer your cell phone to a landline at some unspecified point in the future, if you ever do.
  No, we just want the unsolicited calls to stop completely. You should also be aware that there was at one time (and may still be in some areas) a budget calling plan (sometimes called message rate) for which both incoming and outgoing calls were charged either a per-connection or per-minute fee. That means that someone who struggled just being able to afford phone service could be put in a bad situation by telemarketers. You might think it is "unfair" to the telmarketers to have little or no way to determine whether they will be billed the entire cost of the call. I personally consider it the "cost of doing business." Nobody actually WANTS to be interrupted during dinner by these jerks. If you're going to do business this way, you should accept the risks associated with it. We could make it slightly easier for them by automatically adding mobile phone numbers to the federal do-not-call list. We could also ask the maintainers of the list to add a "mobile phone" flag to the listing.
  Just for the record, there are many people taking advantage of the number portability requirements. Tons of people are dropping their landlines and switching to mobile-only service. And I myself ported my number to Vonage. Considering that the Bell monopolies have been charging us for something like 10 years for the "convenience" of number portability, I'm certainly not going to give up the right to phone spammers.
  
  --
  GreyPoopon
  --
  Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
5. Re:Number portability. by Detritus · 2005-09-05 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  What higher charges?
  I don't pay any extra charges if I call a cellular phone from my landline phone.
  
  --
  Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
6. Re:Number portability. by petermgreen · 2005-09-05 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  i don't know if its still true but i remember reading that if you ported your number to bt cellnet (yes this was before the 02 demerger) other bt cellnet customers would still be charged the other mobile networks rate (which wasn't cheap especailly on pay as you go) to call you.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Eh? by squoozer · 2005-09-04 23:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, I must be missing sonething here. I haven't RTA (sorry) but how can Verizon sue the spammers? If the spammers are paying to send the messages then they are at worst in breach of their contract with Verizon? If they aren't paying to send the messages then thats a whole different ball game and surely there must be some form of criminal activity going on. In which case the police should be involved.

I hate spam in all it's forms but I can't help feeling this is like the mail service suing junk mail producers.

--
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
1. Re:Eh? by Fnord666 · 2005-09-05 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  The article headline is misleading. (if you can imagine that on /.!) The suits have nothing to do with SPAM or text messaging. Verizon customers were receiving telemarketing cold calls on their wireless handsets that played prerecorded sales pitches. This violates the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act in several ways. Both the FCC and some state laws provide legal recourse and a way to recover "punitive" damages for these calls. In addition, if the numbers were also registered with the federal "do not call" list, then additional fines could be levied.
  The interesting thing about this case is that the suit is brought by the provider rather than the individual who was called. It is hard to say how that aspect of things will play out in court if it ever gets that far.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
2. Re:Eh? by Motherfucking+Shit · 2005-09-05 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  If the spammers are paying to send the messages then they are at worst in breach of their contract with Verizon? If they aren't paying to send the messages then thats a whole different ball game and surely there must be some form of criminal activity going on.
  While the article doesn't actually seem to involve cellphone spamming, it is fairly widespread. I don't know about Verizon, but many carriers allow you to receive SMS messages via email. The problem is that the email addresses are predictable, usually yourphonenumber@yourwirelesscarrier.com. Spammers take advantage of this by correlating carriers' exchanges with area codes and carpetbombing all possibilities. It's like a dictionary attack on phone numbers.
  
  Incoming SMS is free for me, so I really don't care much unless the spam gets to be frequent. I've only received a couple, I get more wrong numbers and misdirected SMS's than I get spams.
  
  --
  "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
Mobile phone scamming -- no limits by martijnd · 2005-09-05 00:04 · Score: 2, Interesting
I (loc: Taipei) regular receive the weirdest phonecalls on my mobile, people have tried to:
- Borrow me money (several) ["do you have a credit problem", we at borrow 50% no questions asked"]
- Tried get my address in return for free gifts ["now free handbook to Hong Kong Disneyland"]
- Told me my son had been kidnapped, and that I should transfer money by bank (sidenote; thankfully I have no son)
- I could earn lots of money by just going to a cash machine and entering a few numbers (various versions, "tax refund" application, immediate money return "investment" ,...)
Most people I know & work with get these calls, and of course its usually elderly who fall for these scams. The kidnap story scares the hell out of anyone who gets it.

Most cash machines have warning stickers against these kind of practices. Its all psychology of course, it works wonderfully with fear & greed.

Massive thefts of private information (banks have lost all credit card info through employee heft) make it possible to "personalise" these stories. (Its sounds damned real if they have your bank account number)

Volume is about 3-4 calls per person per week, so with 23 million mobile phones you'd figure somebody would notice these calls.
I love unsolicited calls by Gordonjcp · 2005-09-05 00:05 · Score: 3, Funny

I try to get as many as I can. Of course, some organisations are wise to the fact that the number I've given them is a 50p/minute premium rate number that terminates at my own Asterisk server, but other than that, I could happily chat to them all day.
1. Re:I love unsolicited calls by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  You mean they don't block the 09xx-xxx-xxx numbers that indicate a premium line? What's your revenue vs how much does it cost to maintain the line? I don't mean to sound suspicious, anything that hits them in their wallet is a good thing
2. Re:I love unsolicited calls by Gordonjcp · 2005-09-05 20:26 · Score: 1
  
  You mean they don't block the 09xx-xxx-xxx numbers that indicate a premium line? What's your revenue vs how much does it cost to maintain the line? I don't mean to sound suspicious, anything that hits them in their wallet is a good thing
  
  It's not really a premium number, it's a portable number - 07031 xxxxxx - so it seems to be treated as a mobile number. Note for USians - over here in the UK, mobile calls are entirely paid for by the caller, because they are obviously not a landline. Actually running it is effectively free - there are VoIP providers who will give you them (voipuser.org is one).
I like the spam ... don't get many calls by almound · 2005-09-05 00:15 · Score: 4, Funny

That's what I bought a cell phone for, actually. Don't take it away!
Oblig. "I have free incoming in the US" by LinuxHam · 2005-09-05 01:42 · Score: 1

If I use a cell to make a call to a friend's cell, we both get charged. Even if it's the same cell company [..] Free incoming calls only makes sense, but due to the current infrastructure, it's not feasible.

Sounds like you need to investigate modern offerings. Cingular/AT&T and Verizon have offered unlimited mobile-to-mobile minutes by default for years. And I've had one of Nextel's "free incoming" plan for years (600 peak outbound minutes for $63, all other calls and 2-way free) If you have AT&T/Cingular or Verizon, you most likely have to upgrade your phone to get the best plans. That old AMPS-only "I just need a phone, not a PDA" clunker can be a real boat anchor nowadays.

--
Intelligent Life on Earth
1. Re:Oblig. "I have free incoming in the US" by Sancho · 2005-09-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Did you intentionally cut out the part of my post that said (unless your plan has "free mobile-to-mobile" minutes) so that you could sound informative?
  
  Also, mobile to mobile only counts if you're calling someone in the same company, so in a town like mine (which is serviced by all three major networks) you only get about 1/3 of your calls "free".
  
  Anyway, I don't know about it being the default "for years". I just switched plans 1 year ago this month, and the base plan did not have mobile-to-mobile by default. Since we decided to use our cells almost exclusively, we decided to get the next plan up to get m2m. I see now on Cingular's website that m2m is on all listed plans, but exactly one year ago, it was not.
2. Re:Oblig. "I have free incoming in the US" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 02:49 · Score: 0
  
  Did you intentionally cut out the part of my post that said (unless your plan has "free mobile-to-mobile" minutes) so that you could sound informative?
  
  Dude, relax. Probably like you, I've been capped since they first instituted a numeric cap around here, so you're not dealing with some newbie shmoe. I haven't needed to karma whore for years. I just didn't want to repost your entire post since virtually every statement needed correcting.
  
  That being said, Cingular may not have offered it a year ago, but AT&T has had it for years, as has Verizon with their "In" network. Its bad enough when we have Europeans bashing our cellular services when they have no clue about the challenges involved in covering our millions of square miles and widely varying population densities. Hardly anyone knows about Nextel's "European pricing" plans so that wasn't surprising, but perhaps I expect too many people to know about unlimited m2m within carriers by now.
  
  Your uid is low enough to show that not only are you not some high schooler, but you may even be old enough to not care about the very latest in cellphone gadgetry. It made sense that you haven't kept up with the latest offerings.
3. Re:Oblig. "I have free incoming in the US" by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  I just didn't want to repost your entire post since virtually every statement needed correcting.
  You misquoted the guy, claiming he hadn't heard of mobile to mobile minutes, when clearly he had. Are you sure it's his post that needed correcting?
  FWIW, I'm an (ex-)AT&T customer, and they started doing M2M promotions a little over a year ago, but only for people who signed up for two years. And as the poster you lied about said, free mobile to mobile applies in-network only. Cingular to Verizon is not a free M2M call.
Re: -1 troll by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-05 01:50 · Score: 0

Stop trolling. Your Paypal troll story was funny though.
Text-Spammer SMS.ac gets away with it. by Stitch_Surfs · 2005-09-05 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Perhaps the worst violater of sending unsolicited SMS messages is the company SMS.ac out of San Diego, California.

They've got a track record of trcking users into giving up their passwords to AOL and Hotmail accounts and then using the addresses those accounts contain to send messages to your friends and family that appear to have been sent by the unsuspecting victim. In one case Joi Ito was compromised and when he pubilshed his troubles on his blog they threatened him with legal action!

A search on Technorati http://technorati.com/search/sms.ac%20complaints will reveal an astonishing number of people that have been victimized by this company.

If you haven't heard about this, you really should take a few minutes to check out the scam. The lure is free sms messages...they claim 5 per day, but what happens is shortly after you sign up you begin receiving "friend requests" not dozens, but four or five a day. This doesn't seem like much but if your premium sms charge is 0.50 and you get 5 per day times 30 days per month well...most people on /. can handle that math.

I signed up to do an investigation for my blog and discovered some support for the complaint that these "friend requests" are company originated. Over the course of 3 months I had probably at least half a dozen requests by different screen names with the same photos as well as multiple requests by the same screen name.

Now if there are the millions of members they claim, what are the odds of two people scraping the same images? And of course two different people with the same screen name is an impossibility.

Adding insult to injury (I mean besides the couple hundred bucks I shelled out to verify this) the company actually had the audacity to post a "Cellular Bill of Rights" in my opinion, this is like the fox being left to guard the chickens.

Of course unlike Voice Spammers that are paying to place and terminate their calls, the folks at SMS.ac obviously aren't paying much if anything. Complicit in this, though to what degree they're aware of the issue is Qpass http://qpass.com/ and their m-Qube system for non-operator originated mobile wallet billing.

Personally, I believe enough complaints to Qpass would put a dent in SMS.ac's evil ways. Believe me, they are evil. People lose their phones over this, and it's the one's that can't afford it...kids that didn't know any better who get hurt. Read the complaints for a while and you'll be as indignant as I was when I wrote about their Cellular Bill of Rights http://technorati.com/search/sms.ac%20complaints

--
There is no "I" in B-O-R-G.
Re:Text-Spammer SMS.ac (a correction) by Stitch_Surfs · 2005-09-05 03:38 · Score: 1

the last link in the final sentence should be: http://www.mobile-weblog.com/50226711/smsac_launch es_cellular_bill_of_rights_so_wrong.php

man...lack of sleep can F*** you up...

--
There is no "I" in B-O-R-G.
Who Wins? by dfm3 · 2005-09-05 03:48 · Score: 1

Not only is Verizon Wireless keen for both companies to cease their actions, it is also seeking "monetary damages".

So, I wonder, who gets to pocket the money? I'd bet its not the customer, who's footing most of the bill for these calls and burning up precious minutes over them, not to mention having to put up with them. Verizon is just the carrier.

Several months ago, we started receiving repeated text messages from some online casino. We never use this feature, so we never purchased an "unlimited messaging plan" or whatever they're calling them. Instead, when the bill came, we were charged between $1-$2 for each message we received. Fortunately, the messages stopped after a while, but we were still out a few bucks for messages we never wanted in the first place.
Gee.... by two.oh · 2005-09-05 03:56 · Score: 1

I wonder if any of us customers will be receiving any of that credit on our bills.... In all seriousness, Verizon has the worst customer service I have ever seen. Not only do they sometimes lie or "forget", but they also charge you extra in the hopes that you don't notice it in your bills. I suppose they're not the only company guilty of this, but the only reason why I stick with them is because they have the best wireless service in New York. But getting back to the point, I think we deserve a little credit here, and not entirely the company.
Easy solution to phone spam... by Fuzzball963 · 2005-09-05 04:14 · Score: 1

Not entirely true. I have VZW and anyone I call on VZW is a free call no matter when I call or where they are in the USA. As far as having to pay for calls to another cell phone, yeah if you count using your minutes as paying then it is :). Or I could just wait till I'm on night and weekend mins and do my serious calling (longer than say ten minutes) then. :)

--
"The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, why can't you?"
Why US mobiles don't have special area codes by concept14 · 2005-09-05 04:29 · Score: 1

Not giving separate area codes to mobile phones in the US was a deliberate decision of the Federal Communications Commission. The purpose was to promote competition between providers. If there were separate area codes for new forms of telephone service, then the former Bell system landline carriers would have the benefit of the familiar area codes while the new companies would be stuck with strabge unfamiliar area codes. Or so the reasoning went.

--
Quis metamoderunt ipses metamoderatores?
Your Damage, Their Profit by Doc+Ruby · 2005-09-05 04:45 · Score: 1

Verizon is taking a page from Microsoft, which won compensation for itself for damages sustained by its customers. Which it didn't pass along to its customers. After it enabled those damages with its insecure systems.

The US justice system lets corporations keep compensation for damages they help cause. The courts also award "punitive damages" from damagers to the damaged parties, on top of "compensation damages". Why? The damager should pay the punishment, but after the victim is already compensated for their damage (usually with lots of interest), why does that punitive award not go to the court? Those courts cost us, the people, lots of money - regardless of the outcome. It's like a reverse stock broker fee that we always pay, regardless of which direction the awards market moves. The costs are worth it - justice is priceless - but what business does a damaged party have collecting a fine on top of their compensation?

The courts are moving even further in this unjust direction. The latest round of "Conservative" justices appointed have cheap little "morality" fig leaves over their obscene corporatist private parts. They will redirect wealth in judgements to their corporate base at every turn, away from the people, away from a sustainable government that would protect us from these corporations (and each other). The next two justices appointed by Bush (22% of the 9 member Supreme Court) will join Thomas, Scalia and the other corporate shills. We're going to watch as the courts preside over the destruction of the public sphere, legitimizing corporate predation at our expense.

--
--
make install -not war
Hypocrites! by mdobossy · 2005-09-05 05:22 · Score: 1

Just as Verizon is lashing out against "spammers", they are doing the same to thier own customers. My wife recently recieved not one, but 3 text message, from Verizon, telling her that she can upgrade her plan. When we called to ask them to stop, their response was the her current plan "entitled her" to receive text message of plan upgrades. We asked them to stop, they said "No." It wasn't until I spoke with a manager, and let him know that they would be losing my wife, myself, and my company (a few thousand dollars worth of service per year) if they did not "unentitle" her to receive text message ads.
No, screw them by wsanders · 2005-09-05 06:02 · Score: 1

The telemarketers calling me are getting increasing nasty. When I break into their spiel to politely but firmly say "please put me on your no-call list", I have gotten a couple of "Fuck you too"'s from them, and one called me back to threaten me. I think a lot of these callers think they are working toward a job as Mr Big in sales.

There are plenty of other jobs out there. If you take a job making unsolicited calls, you are pond scum. While I don't think you should be strung up with piano wire from the nearest lamppost like your bosses, but you are an unevolved life form no higher than crustacean, I hope the stress of the job gives you skin problems until you decide to get a job with real value, your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries, and by the way my dog hates your job too.

--
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Verizon beats out Cingular in disaster area by divisivemind · 2005-09-05 08:41 · Score: 1

After being into the disaster area (south and southwest of N.O.) several times in the last week, I've been very impressed with how Verizon coverage has hung in there over my Cingular work cellphone. Obviously, they both cut out before getting as far south as Grand Isle. This was also true on a recent trip to the Covington area as well.

--
Blog: http://richardrandomrants.blogspot.com/