Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Do-Not-Hesitate-To-Call List
An anonymous reader writes "The creation of a do-not-call list in Canada has run into
trouble. Michael Geist reports that the proposal has been effectively destroyed, with exceptions for just about every telemarketer including businesses, political parties, polling companies, and charities. The government committee apparently heard from the marketers but refused to listen to consumer groups."
...to test out the anti-telemarketing counterscript ;-)
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
You think maybe that didn't work out because business lines are exempt?
Are you sure your business numbers are really on the list? I'd suggest resubmitting the numbers, and if the calls don't stop (20-50 a day?!?!?) file complaints and demand compensation.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
It appears (from Google's cache) that his article was just summarizing this Toronto Star article.
So out of curiosity, why aren't you pursuing your $500/call DNC violation penalty.
I've not had a single telemarketing call since the DNC, and was averaging three per day before it, so for me it has been a great success.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Actually, I think the list aplies to home numbers only. Read below, taken from www.donotcall.gov:
The National Do Not Call Registry gives you a choice about whether to receive telemarketing calls at home
Note, the "at home" portion.
That said, I've had two number since the registry began. Both home numbers have had a decrease in the number of calls. The only place that ever called was a political campaign and the local firehouse. Both which, I believe, are legally allowed to do so. Other than that, the thing works great at home!
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Thats because Business' do not apply to the DNCR. Telemarketers can still call a business. The DNCR is there to protect personal numbers. It seems to work well for me. I only receive one telemarketing call in the past year or so and it was from a company that I purchase from in the past.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
AC is right. Business numbers can be placed on the list, but they are not enforceable.
Also, I bet that as an ISP, you deal with companies who are affiliated with other companies, and can try to use the loophole for existing business relationships -- if they have any sort of business relationship to you, or you've ever called or contacted them, then they can market to you unless you explicitly tell them to only call you on existing business.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
The posting's misleading, unfortunately, like so many on Slashdot lately.
The proposed bill does not grant an exception to the do-not-call list to all businesses; it grants an exception to businesses that have an *existing* business relationship with you. Still not good, but a random telemarketer won't be allowed to call you if you're not already a customer one way or another.
Michael's article is quite clear in this regard, too. I really wish the Slashdot editors would check submissions for factual accuracy instead of blindly accepting any sensationalist story - Slashdot really seems to be becoming the tabloid news outlet of the internet, which is rather unfortunate.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The proposed bill does not grant an exception to the do-not-call list to all businesses; it grants an exception to businesses that have an *existing* business relationship with you. Still not good, but a random telemarketer won't be allowed to call you if you're not already a customer one way or another.
So, let's just examine CIBC for example. Let's say Joe Canuck has a checking account with them. Now he has a relationship with them.
Ah, so only they will phone, right?
Wrong. Now CIBC can call you, anyone in their umbrella corporation can call you about:
- insurance
- trips to Barbados
- Cuban cigars
- investing in mining stock in Brazil
- buying a timeshare in Guadaloupe
When you do business with one firm, you are doing business with ALL the firms that corporation owns, under the definitions.
And that, my friend, is just plain wrong. It should be opt-in.
If I have a telephone in BC, then I have no choice but to have their corporation get my permission for all their "corporations" to phone me. When I have a checking account or a credit card, that's hundreds of corporations that can now phone me.
To you it's a small door.
To me, it's hundreds of doors that I didn't even know about existing in the first place.
Now, mind you, I'm basing this on my Business Management degree from Capilano College and some law courses I took in high school in B.C., but I doubt it's changed that much.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh, for fuck's sakes. Americans get just as many bullshit cases like that then we do. That's why there is a -justice- system. This will be analyzed and thrown out due to human rights issues and previous case history.
Before you claim the following:
but at least we still have freedom of religion and speech, unlike Canada
Read our fucking Bill of Rights:
PART I BILL OF RIGHTS
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
I'm sorry, but you obviously didn't read the article. These are the OPPOSITION's amendments (the opposition being your beloved CONSERVATIVES) who want to protect their buddies in big business.
The government (i.e. liberal) amendment is to allow the person with the telephone number to say they want to exempt charities when they put themselves on the list. That's more reasonable, obviously.
Don't bother putting your foot in your mouth. We forgive you for your ignorance. You're obviously practicing to be an American.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I have heard a lot of people combat telemarketers by feigning interest in the product or service and then asking the caller to hold while they get a pen and paper. Then they set the phone down and never come back on the line.
My sister used to work as a telemarketer. She told me that she LOVED these calls. The productivity software at the service bureau shows her as working a call. In actuality, she used the time to read, chat with friends, etc.
At the end of the day, she was credited for keeping a customer on the phone for 20 minutes.
While the workers may enjoy these calls it might still make sense as a way to hurt the companies bottom line.
A perfectly useful method if you, first, have a mobile, and second, live in a place that allows companies to charge half a pound a minute to call mobiles.
Here in North America, it costs per-minute charges to recieve calls on your mobile, but costs nothing per minute to call a mobile from a landline, so calling a mobile isn't a deterrent to making a call, and it's much cheaper to take calls on a landline
If I call someone up on their mobile from my landline and talk to them for ten straight hours, I'm charged $0.07 total, that being the per-call flat fee on my current landline plan. They get charged 600 mobile minutes. If instead they'd answered my call on their landline, the ten hours of talk would have cost them nothing and me seven cents.