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...
I would like to thank Canada for creating a place where a lonely person like me can go to have constant human contact via phone calls. I will now be able to live a much fuller life if I move to Canada.
The subject says it all. It could also be a solution: /. the telemarketers
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
I'm moving to the U.S.!
With pre-emptive slashdotting, the target website is obliterated BEFORE any slashdotter has any chance of seeing it!
In the U.S., the Do Not Call Registry was about as effective as well. The bosses signed up our business phone lines and nothing has really changed. We still get on average of 20-50 solicitation calls a day.
That doesn't sound like much, but for a small mom-n-pop ISP run by 4 guys and a dog with 2 phone lines, it's awful. Fwiw, we're all pretty good at screening calls via Caller ID.
Good luck to our fellow Canadian brethren, whether they've disowned us or not.
do() || do_not();
Canada is a capitalist nation, just like most modern nations. Just because you live in Canada doesn't exempt you from having your "rights" and concerns over-ridden with the more important rights and concerns of revenue making, tax-paying, politician lobbying private industries.
The way I think it works out now is that if you sign on to the Canadian Do-Not-Call list you will only receive calls from businesses, political parties, polling companies, and charities.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
That's our Canadian government - always looking out for the little guys. Those much maligned mega marketers, the poorly pictured political parties and poll promulgators, the little lobbyests languishing in the face of previously proposed changes to our country's telecommunications laws.
What ever were we thinking in our attempts to wrest the right to remain "unlisted" and "untapped"?
How dare we expect to have the right to not be disturbed in the midst of our daily ablutions by the ring-ring-ringing of the telephone?
I am (almost) at a loss for words, but I'm certain that if I wait a bit, someone new will call me and try to sell me their own.
Sadly it appears that my government is no longer similar to the American's "of the people, by the people, for the people", but "to the people".
The article is gone, but if the businesses that are exempted are those with a pre-existing relationship with you, that would be the same as the American Do Not Call list.
just do what I did, and get cell plan where you get refund for received calls.
I've almost paid my last months phone bill, just by talking with telemarketers.
You can easily keep them talking for about 30 minutes by asking everything about the product they're selling.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
Where's the "mom" in the mom-n-pop? If it's just you 4 guys and the dog...
Just be less polite. If everybody just hangs up on the marketeers once they start talking, it should stop fast enough (no income anymore=exit scheme, onto the next one: Pop-up and pop under adds, exit pages, etc EVIL LAUGH).
The marketeers are usually trying to be persistent by just saying things like: you don't know what I am going to offer.
If telemarketing anoys you, just hang up, do not even say goodbye anymore, you don't know them, you don't owe them, so what do you care.
Sofar my advice to make canadians less polite.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
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.
I bumped into a guy via a cellphone mailing list, whose company has a dialling product that hangs up if it detects a human at the other end. But if it detects an answerphone, it delivers its advert. You have to wonder about people who actually design something like that, and the client companies that think it's the best way to get the message across. The guy does stuff for IBM, which we certainly filed away for future reference.
Just feed Eliza some random input from an irc channel and pipe its output into ATT&T TTS system and then into the phone for the telemarketer.
Option 2)
And if you are really lucky (and spammed), team up two telemarketers with each other, just as we saw with skype here.
Umm.. I don't want to be called by anyone. This includes political parties, charities (thanks, I already donate hundreds of dollars yearly to local community groups, the Red Cross, and others I deem fit), and I am prefectly capable of finding the best goods/services to fit my needs on my own.
I already know enough about our political system to know that our form of democracy is badly broken. I don't need their "information".
Is it really too much to ask to be left alone?
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
Don't answer your phone... Mine has been on an answering machine since about 1980. We talk to each other by leaving messages on each other's machines. Keeps the phone bill down too.
Oh well, what the hell...
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! --
The do-not-call-list has worked great for me. Since I signed up I have gotten zero telemarketers. Just a couple pollsters. After I got VoIP (kept my phone number), I started getting telemarketer calls again and i thought the do-not-call thing wasn't working. Then I learned that any time the service on a number is change in any way (such as going from POTS to VoIP) it gets removed from the list and you have to add it again. I added it again and the calls stopped.
I don't really know why your business is still getting calls. Are you getting called by telemarketers or just cold calls from B2B sales people? Perhaps they are calling one of the numbers in your hunt group and not your main number? Did you add ALL your businesses numbers to the list? Most businesses will have a group of numbers with one "main" number that autoforwards to a free line in a group.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I hate when those police organizations call and say stuff like, "We think that losing even ONE child is too many. Don't you agree?"
I usually try to say completely calm and cold, "No actually one is ok. Most people have more than one kid as a backup anyways."
Very hard to do actually, you should try it sometime.
*Of course I value human life, especially children. It just gets me how these people try and prey on your emotions to get $10*
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.
...is to figure out how to contact the Direct Marketing Association (or its Canuck equivalent; I forget its name) and get struck off the list.
I did this nearly a decade ago and I have *no telemarketing calls* save three local charities that aren't members of the DMA.
Unfortunately, I failed to save the information. I recall I obtained it by calling the telco and getting downright irate about the attempts by Sprint Cda to slam me into one of their plans. Somehow or other I finagled a phone number from the customer service rep...
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.
From someone who has had the nerve, it tends to work even Better if your both men :
.. sure I guess .. "
Telemarketer: "I was wondering if I could ask you a few questions?"
Me: "May I ask you one question first ?"
TM: "Umm
Me: (Deep breathy kind of voice) "What are you wearing right now. I mean, is it sexy ?"
TM: "Umm"
Me: "Lacey ? Leather ? What, common now, don't hold back."
TM "Thank-you sir, I hope you have a good day."
*click*
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
> When fire becomes a financial burden, safety will go up.
You sicken me. To paraphrase you:
"Once enough people die, and its too expensive to pay out insurance claims, insurance companies will enforce stricter rules."
Once people die. You need people to die first before anybody does anything.
State regulations may be reactive to a certain extent, but not by design. Placing safety and health regulations in a freemarket requires human suffering by dresign before a market correction.
Your counter argument, which I know already is, so what, more people die under supposedly proactive government over regulation.
Which is a hypothesis, and not factual. Turning these things over to the free market is essentially saying, "Well, we're too dumb to know what works, but one thing we know for sure is if enough people die/getsick/getfucked, it'll become too expensive to maintain insurance."
Lets be honest here, you're talking about fire insurance payouts, but the money has to do with injuries/death in addition to simple property destruction. So you're suggesting a free market where the cost/revenue model is related to people dying.
Sick.
"Old man yells at systemd"
No one needs any form of regulation from government at any level as they all create favoritism and don't fix any problem. Even pollution regulations are better controlled by the free market. Heavy polluters get blasted by watchdog groups, cleaner emitters get praised and consumers make the decision who succeeds and who fails.
That has to be the dumbest thing I have read all day. It is no wonder it got modded to +4 insightful.
Companies exist to make money. That is their sole responsibilty. In the vast majority of cases a PR problem will not affect them as much as the increased cost of doing business associated with not polluting. If you think a company won't exchance birth defects in 1000 children for a $2,000,000 increase in profits you are kidding yourself. You are also ignoring history. Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
I've got a feeling that you aren't too worried though. You can afford to move away from the parts of America where birth defects are staggeringly common. Assuming that you earned your wealth rather than inheriting it (though I'm positive your parents were at least well off) you know better than to believe the drivel you are spuing.
Your selfishness and greed astound me.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My 4-year-old just LOVES to talk on the phone. "Ya wanna speak to the lady of the house? SURE! I'll get her for ya!" Usually the poor schmucks hang up after about 5 minutes.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
The problem faced by Canada and/or the USA is indicative of a more general (and therefore more difficult to solve) problem.
When a telemarketer calls you from your own country, both parties are governed by the same laws, however, many of those laws are ineffective when the caller and recipient are in different countries.
With cheap telecommunications international telemarketing is becoming more common, and consumer protection is beginning to suffer.
Take, for example, the recent spate of calls that have originated in Florida, and targetted North-West Europe. Each of these European countries has a national do-not-call list, yet international telemarketers are ignoring these lists, believing themselves to be untouchable.
It's become so bad that "the Consumer Ombudsmen from the Nordic Countries of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland have contacted the US Federal Trade Commission and cited concerns over some international business practices" [1][2]
The letter itself cites concerns over both telemarketing and general internet marketing, and illustrates that once national boundaries are crossed, the temptation to increase sales (possibly by misrpresenting the goods that are being sold) may be more than some telemarketers (or telemarketing company managers) can bear.
What is needed is a global agreement on Do-Not-Call lists. Without such an agreement, national lists will be entirely irrelevant as each company conscientiously respects it's own citizens whilst mercilessly telespamming the rest of the world.
boakes.org