Do Not Call Registry Gets Glowing Reviews

coondoggie writes to tell us that in a recent report to Congress by the FTC, the National Do Not Call Registry got glowing reviews. They seem to be well established now with $21 million in fees in the bank, 22 successful court cases, and an almost 70% approval rating. "In 2007, a total of 6,242 entities paid fees totaling $21,602,003 for access to the National Registry. According to the FTC, telemarketers and sellers can access registered telephone numbers and pay the appropriate fee for that access, if any, through an Internet website dedicated to that purpose. The only information about consumers that companies receive from the National Registry is the registered telephone number. Since the Registry's inception, a total of 18,197 unique entities have paid fees for access to the National Registry. The total amount of fees paid by all entities since the inception of the National Registry through the end of 2007 is $80,629,778, the report stated."

Comments

Two problems still

[BadAnalogyGuy]

1) Still opt-out style. Unless you add yourself to the list, you are fair game for callers

2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers

It's better than nothing, but there are certainly ways to make it better.

Re:Two problems still

[LWATCDR]

"2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers"
That is covered under freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech does not have the same protection as political or religious speech. Which I feel is a good thing.
I am not fond of the other calls but they are clearly protected in the US.
As to opt out? Fine with me since I did.

Re:Two problems still

[philspear]

A third problem is it doesn't protect against collection agencies. This wouldn't be a problem, except that where I live, apperantly every "recycled" number was registered to someone who owed someone money. If the phone is plugged in, the collection agencies call hourly, despite the number not being active for most of a year.

Telling them the person no longer lives there and the number is recycled at best gets a sympathetic "Sorry, I understand but I have no authority to do anything about it."

Come to think of it, does anyone know if I have any recourse (other than to just use my cell phone, which I do)?

Re:Two problems still

[Tebriel]

Tell them to cease and desist or you will file harassment charges.

Re:Two problems still

[PlatyPaul]

Actually, I'm surprised that there hasn't been mention of anyone opt-bombing the system, as your number is only confirmed when registering by phone - they simply require an email confirmation if you do it online.

All you'd need to do is direct all incoming emails @yourdomainnamegoeshere.com to one account, set up an auto-opt system and an auto-respond system, run through all numbers in your area code.

Re:Two problems still

[Obfuscant]

"2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers" That is covered under freedom of speech.

Actually, it isn't. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to use my property to conduct your speech. The freedom of pollsters to "speak" to me ends at the demarc, where I start paying for the wires.

It's ineffective simply because the politicians get money from fundraisers and hire pollsters to push-poll their constituents. They wrote their own exemption into the law.

They exemption they DO NOT HAVE, is if you tell them explicitely not to call you. THAT makes the next call illegal.

Re:Two problems still

[Obfuscant]

A third problem is it doesn't protect against collection agencies.

It would be a bad law that says that a company with which you are involved in business dealings couldn't call you because you are on the DNC list. A collection agency inherits your "business dealings" with the people you didn't pay. Or the people who had the number before you who didn't pay.

Come to think of it, does anyone know if I have any recourse (other than to just use my cell phone, which I do)?

The law says they must stop calling you if you tell them to stop calling you, even IF you are the deadbeat they are trying to find.

If you aren't, that ends the problem. They are usually trying to harass someone, anyone, into paying something, and if you don't harass well, they lose money by calling you. They probably don't have enough evidence to prove you owe the money, so they won't waste court time.

If you ARE the deadbeat, and they can prove it, you've just escalated the problem to the next level, which might mean legal proceedings and lawsuits, so you might want to think twice about telling them to stop.

Re:Two problems still

[penguin_dance]

2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers
That is covered under freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech does not have the same protection as political or religious speech.

I hardly think that calling up my 82 year-old widowed mother to ask for campaign donations = protected political speech! Begging for money shouldn't be protected speak whether you're buying siding or donating to a non-profit.

It's been exasperating, my parents used to be active locally in political campaigns when they were much younger. And it's been some time that they donated any monies. My dad died over a year ago and she gets calls asking for him. Naturally she doesn't want to tell a complete stranger her husband died. When they'd ask if Mr. ___ could come to the phone, she'd say no and they'd say, "okay, I'll call back." Usually they hang up before she can tell them, don't call here again. Even when she does, she still gets calls. I've told her to say instead, "There's no one here by that name." Short of changing the phone number she's had for decades, I hope that tactic works.

Re:Two problems still

[LWATCDR]

I would suggest caller id and a phone machine.
I am afraid that yes fund raising is a form of political speech and is protected.
It is annoying but not that terrible. And I am sorry to her about mothers loss. Things like that are at best a sore spot and at worse very painful.

Re:Two problems still

[ELProphet]

Phenomenal Internet Solutions, huh? With a simple
$ nslookup yourdomainnamegoeshere.com
Server: 216.187.160.17

you would have found at that YOU SHOULD F*ING USE example.com !!!

Re:Two problems still

[hedwards]

I'm sorry, but that's not protected speech. The first amendment protects a persons ability to say most things and the ability to broadcast the same things.

The first amendment does not however protect a person's attempts to speak to a particular person, nor does it grant the right to convey a message to a particular person over a private medium.

There is no constitutional basis which prevents the government from allowing an opt out for campaign messages or charity fund raising. As long as the person who would receive the messages is the one opting out, there is not constitutional ban on it. Now a third party opting out or banning the communication is likely violating first amendment protections, but that's a completely different matter.

Re:Two problems still

[Drathos]

I'll add another to that:

3) Still ineffective against scammers who don't care about the DNC list.

I get pre-recorded messages from autodialers with forged Caller ID trying to get personal information under the premise of a credit card debt reduction service (which they never name) on both my land line and my cell phone (where any form of telemarketing - including the loopholes of the DNC - is forbidden by the FCC). Despite numerous complaints to the DNC site, the FCC (for cell phone telemarketing) and the service providers, I still get at least one of these calls every day. The only feedback I get from any of my complaints is the FCC mailing me a copy of my complaint.

Then there's all the times the phone rings with a blocked Caller ID and nothing on the other end of the line. I get 6 or 7 of those a day on my land line and I have to answer it because some of the people I work with have Caller ID blocked by their place of work (mostly government agencies).

Re:Two problems still

[hedwards]

If it really isn't you, the proper step is usually contacting the attorney general's office. They usually have multiple complaints and are usually authorized to file suit.

The local state attorney general's office usually has information about the regulations on that sort of behavior in your state. At least mine does, I'd assume other states are similar.

Re:Two problems still

[Tubal-Cain]

Can you also tell them not to give your number to anyone else? (at which point they might as well delete your number from their database.)

Re:Two problems still

[Stan Vassilev]

1) Still opt-out style. Unless you add yourself to the list, you are fair game for callers

2) Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers

It's better than nothing, but there are certainly ways to make it better.

I don't see how being forced to buy something by law means you give it a "glowing review", alas..

Another way to fight against unsolicited calls is to figure out who called you and take further actions that they are exposed, and possibly shut down.

Re:Two problems still

[lgw]

Please use "example.com" when you need an example domain name. That's what it's there for. It's simple politeness.

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

The calls with nothing on the other end of the line are most likely dialers. They call a huge list of numbers, listen for busy signals/eternal ringing and remove those numbers from the list. If someone picks up they either add them to a "known good list" or forward the call to a human being. If all the humans are busy you get a blank line. If it's adding you to a known good list it will hang up after a short bit.

Valid research companies as well as telemarketers all use the same technology so it's tough to tell what it is. Basically if you get called later to do a survey it's research, if they're selling you a car warantee, it's not.

Re:Two problems still

[Lord Apathy]

The problem with telling them not to call you requires you to send them a letter. An that only works for part of the time. Once the collection agencies get told to piss off on a dead tree they simply sell your debit to an affiliate or another company. Sometimes they just close up shop and reopen under a new name. Then the shit starts all over again.

Re:Two problems still

[penguin_dance]

Actually she has both, but she gets a lot of calls that say "out of service area" some of which are out-of-state relatives, but some are not so she usually picks the phone up just in case. We tell her just to turn off the ringer, but old habits are hard to break and she, of course, gets lonely.

I'm hoping that if she'll just start saying 'there's no one by that name', they'll think someone else has the number and drop it off the list. Sometimes that works.

Re:Two problems still

[drinkypoo]

I agree in principle, but if you are using "yourdomainnamegoeshere.com" then you deserve what you get. It's like calling it "exampledonotuse.com".

Re:Two problems still

[LWATCDR]

We can hope. And maybe she wouldn't be so lonely if HER SON called her more. guilt guilt guilt...
Just kidding. I do hope her all the best and I hope we can all get through this election with our sanity intact.

Re:Two problems still

[afidel]

The magic words are "please add me to your do not call list". I have a friend who works in IT for a very large telemarketing firm and he has worked in political and now works with charities, they do a LOT of work to not call you, or more specifically to call those people most likely to donate. It costs the client for every call made, so the clients make sure that only the people with the greatest likelyhood of giving are called. The first step in their process is to eliminate every number from the national, state, and internal do not call lists. They also eliminate all known cellphone blocks and the list of numbers that have been ported by cellphone carriers. These are huge jobs that run into hundreds of GB's. Deleting your number from that job would do very little as they get numbers from their clients or paid list compilers for almost every job, getting added to their do not call list is much better (the national list is best because ALL legitimate telemarketers use it).

Re:Two problems still

[frosty_tsm]

For testing purposes, yes.

This requires responding to the e-mail, so he needs it to be a domain name that he would monitor.

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

or @whydoyoucarewhatheusesforhisdomainnameandhowcanyouconsideritimpolite.com

Re:Two problems still

[lgw]

No, I meant in his /. posting. He's probably not the owner of "yourdomainnamegoeshere.com", but someone is: it's a registered domain. When you need an example domain name in a discussion about the internet please use "example.com", expecially in a textbook or a high-traffic site like /.. This has been a problem since the dawn of the internet, and "example.com" was reserved for just this reason. You'd be amazed how many people will click on/type in *any* domain name, just out of curiosity.

If you need to make up a phone number for use as an example in a public discussion, use the 555 prefix, which is reserved for that purpose. If you ned to make up a domain name for use as an example in a public discussion, use example.com (or .net or whatever), which is reserved for that purpose.

For testing, use the .test TLD (or .xy, or .tld, or .bogus, or .asixtythreecharacterstopleveldomainnamewhichisthelongestallowed or another TLD reserved for testing).

Re:Two problems still

[mrchaotica]

Despite numerous complaints to the DNC site, the FCC (for cell phone telemarketing) and the service providers, I still get at least one of these calls every day. The only feedback I get from any of my complaints is the FCC mailing me a copy of my complaint.

What part of the FCC do you send the complaints to? Please post the contact information.

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ineffective simply because the politicians get money from fundraisers and hire pollsters to push-poll their constituents. They wrote their own exemption into the law.

They exemption they DO NOT HAVE, is if you tell them explicitly not to call you. THAT makes the next call illegal.

That's not true. Example: the Democratic presidential candidates campaigns. (All recordings.) At the end of the first call they give you a number to call to have your number removed. I finally had to call because the recording kept calling, literally, every day. The recording I reached asked for the number to be removed and then said "By law we have up to 30 days before we have to stop calling. Though usually it only takes two to three days." So they still get a month of harassing you on a daily basis.

Re:Two problems still

[Foerstner]

And I agree with that in principle, but there's an RFC that dictates this sort of thing.

Re:Two problems still

[Drathos]

Here is the contact info. I have used both the online form and the phone number.

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is rude and worthy of scolding to use anything else?

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

So you need to know the contents of all the RFCs to post on /. ???

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country politicians and people in the know can get copies of the voters list which contains at least a name, address and occupation. Occupation and address can at least suggest an economic status.

Since the days of "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? ..." I have had a reluctance to volunteer to be on anybody's list.

> Unless you add yourself to the list, you are fair game for callers
> Still ineffective against pollsters, politicians, and fundraisers
> It's better than nothing, but there are certainly ways to make it
> better.

I disagree. While my unlisted number keeps me out of the phonebook, that is not and never has been the problem. The problem is that most everywhere you go requires you to give a phone number and in the case of this do-not-call registery an email address which electronically ties you to a phone number and street address. Providing a phone number to anyone enables them with currently technology to send and keep the number stored on almost any computer on the planet. Even cheap cell phones give almost everyone call display enabling a user to put a name beside a number. If it rings and provides no name, you know you don't need to talk to the individual and it goes to voice mail. Job done.

The perfect answer is pretty cheap and flawless. Obtain 2 phone lines to your liking, and keep one phone as a call-out phone only with the ringer turned off or ringer disconnected. You give this phone number to the world that wants it with no answering machine connected - or credit card companies, telemarketers and the rest of the world take take the number from their call display when you call them and only use that number to make outgoing calls. The other phone number you connect an answer machine to with a generic answering voice and only answer/screen calls. You give that number out to nobody but trusted individiuals. Since most of the people like medical, bank, and other important people you deal with have both your home and work numbers, they can reach you in an emergency at work but otherwise don't bother you or as you wish. The net result is that you will never receive an unsolicited call agian in your life save the odd one that with a little patience will go away after always getting an answering machine. Professional and rich people often have several phone numbers so it is not all that unique but for the most part you can do it for the cost of 2 cheap phone lines. It has worked for me since the 1970s without fail.

Re:Two problems still

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC won't be improved to cover political calls and polls because the courts have considered them protected free speech.

Re:Two problems still

[afidel]

Try the FTC, if you can provide enough information and they get enough complaints they can generally do an investigation and close them down. I had a scammer calling my work phone several times a week with an auto-dialer and when I was able to provide the FTC with the information including times called, people talked to, date when request to be removed from list, etc. After a couple months the calls stopped and I read in the online edition of the paper for that area of Florida that several people had been arrested for phone scams, made me feel good =)

Re:Two problems still

[Drathos]

That's the problem. The instant you try to get any identifying information, they hang up on you. Between forged Caller ID and that, there's no way to get enough information for a useful complaint.

Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[haluness]

I thought the goal of the registry was to exclude marketers from getting this info? So who gve the glowing reviews?

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[CyprusBlue113]

How do you expect telemarketers to know who not to call if you do not *tell* them who not to call?

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[HomerJ]

If you don't have access to the list, how are you supposed to know who not to call?

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[Madball]

I thought the goal of the registry was to exclude marketers from getting this info? So who gve the glowing reviews?

Well, think about it. How do you know if you are allowed to call someone, unless the list is actually published.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[MrMunkey]

Like the other two have said, you need to know who not to call. I used to work on the CRM for a company that started doing outbound dialing campaigns. There is a lot of phone numbers in that list. You also get updates monthly (or really whenever you want to update it) and then you can download the change log stating which numbers were added, which were deleted, and when so that the people on the phone can confirm that stuff. Companies are still required to maintain their own specific do not call list as well.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[MrMunkey]

Crap, I forgot to add some more information. Mostly I used the numbers to remove them from the dialing lists that we purchased from the three major credit bureaus, or a few other places. It was easier to dump a few companies after finding out 80% or more of the numbers were on the national DNC. That's bad when they say that they pre-screen the numbers for you. Verification FTW!!!

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[bigstrat2003]

To the respondants above me: WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[holmedog]

I work for a data warehousing company. Any accounts that we have that still use direct telemarketing campaigns are required to buy the list. It's not that expensive, and it is very nice, honestly. These people took the time to say they won't be buying things from telemarketers, so we know we don't want to market towards these people.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[lazyDog86]

I thought the goal of the registry was to exclude marketers from getting this info? So who gve the glowing reviews?

Well, think about it. How do you know if you are allowed to call someone, unless the list is actually published.

This is a clear violation of my rights to both privacy and sarcasm! Telemarketers should not be allowed to know that they are not allowed to call me and you, sir, need to take a deep breath before posting.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all we need are other advertisers to take the same attitude, and government lists concerning advertising in other media to give to them.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[Gromius]

no, these people took the time to say they dont want to buy things from telemarketers. This is not the same as wont and this is why telemarketers opposed the scheme as they could talk round nice people who find it difficult to say no to a person into buying crap.

The list is a wonderfull thing, not only did it cut my calls to nothing, it also helps people who are too nice/gulible stop getting fleaced. From a business perspective, well its nice to know that you arent taking advantage of your customers but you probably make less profit. But hey being ethical is a good thing in its own right.

Re:Telemarketers access the DNC registry??

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Opt-in list?

Pay for access to the list?

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Am I misunderstanding the article to believe the telemarketers only need to pay to have access to a list people signed up to not be telemarketed? Really?!?

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[crow]

Nope, that's exactly how it works. The trick is that if they call people on the list, they get fined, so it's cheaper to buy access to the list.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they have to know who they're not allowed to call. Basically, they have to either (i) pay a fee to do business legally, or (ii) shut down entirely.

I'd prefer the latter.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Forgive my stupidity...my answers lie above.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

My post was an obvious knee-jerk reaction. Please disregard.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[MrMunkey]

I wouldn't think so. Like I said in another post, I used to work for a company that did outbound campaigns. I had to keep the list up-to-date and also purge the dialing lists of those numbers on the National DNC List. I don't remember the exact number of the fine, but it was pretty large and on a per call basis. Based on this article the per-call fine is $10,000. You'd better be making a HUGE margin on each sale to make up those costs.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, just another reason those B@$T@RD$ up in Washington get to make money off their constituents by getting them to register for the DNC service and then charge the @$$HOLE$ who we don't want bothering us in the first place a fee so that they can bother us still!

Damn it all to hell, I'm getting tired of lying, cheating, conniving politicians.

Or maybe I'm just getting old, bitter and grumpy.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[bonkeydcow]

Works great for charities. They get a nice cheap list of people that they CAN call. That's why I keep getting called for this charity BS for knocked up teenage sluts!

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on, do you people even watch futurama?

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[CheeseTroll]

Heh, I also used to work for a company that relied heavily on telemarketing. I loved scrubbing our lists with the DNC lists (they were per-state at that time) and kinda felt sorry for the 50% that didn't get scrubbed. The downside (which we in IT saw coming a mile away) was that the DNC lists really took a toll on our business as we burned through the remaining leads at an alarming rate, and the company has since tanked. Not so great for my paycheck at the time, but society is definitely better off without these parasites, IMHO.

Regarding the $10,000 fine: Yes, it's huge, but also very difficult to enforce. Only 22 successful court cases? I probably still get that many automated phone calls to my home number every week.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[LordKronos]

Thats a nice theory, except that in 5 years only 22 companies have been fined. I'll admit, the list has helped me tremendously, and my phone is now a LOT quieter. However, I alone have had more than 22 telemarketers call me in that time. When you look at it in the grand scheme of things, it is a great deterrent to the huge telemarketing companies. However, for the medium and small ones, it appears they'll never even be gotten around to, and they thus have very little worry of being fined. I'm fearing the day they all figure this out and all start blatently ignoring the list.

Re:Pay for access to the list?

[Asdanf]

Is anyone else disturbed that one has to buy access to the list, rather than it being published free? If ignorance of the law is not an excuse, knowledge of the law had darn well better be free. That's not the case here: there are some things it's illegal to do (calling certain numbers) and if you want to know what those things are, you have to pay for that privilege.

Happy until recently

[ArtemaOne]

I have my home and mobile numbers on this registry, but recently I've been getting more calls from toll free numbers for various crap. I can't imagine how many I'd get without it though.

Re:Happy until recently

[veganboyjosh]

We get these at work. actually, i'm not sure that they're from toll free numbers, come to think about it.

Does anyone have any idea how to make them go away? To date I've just been pressing "1" or whatever the appropriate button is to speak to someone, as if I'm interested in their insurance. Then, once I've been put into the queue, I just put the call speakerphone, and go about my business. When the operator picks up, i make sure to type extra loudly, or ruffle papers, so it's obvious to them that someone's on the line. They eventually hang up. I figure it's gotta cost them something to have someone on their end waiting for the mark to buy. If they don't make a sale, then they've lost something.

What else is effective? I'm happy to do a little playful mischief if it costs them money, rather than go through the hassle of going through their do not call department, since the calls continue even after requesting to be taken off.

Re:Happy until recently

[Obfuscant]

Does anyone have any idea how to make them go away?

These crap calls are a natural result of the DNC. They spoof the caller id and they never tell you what company they are calling from until after you "press 1" and thus accept the call.

I've had these people two or three times a day leaving messages on my answering machine at home. It varies between "you've won a wonderful vacation, press 1 to collect or 9 to be removed from the list" and "this is your final notification about your credit account, press 1 ...". The caller id is a fake 800/866/877 number and the name of a state (MISSOURI, e.g.). Yeah, the entire state of Missouri is calling on line 1 ... yesterday I heard from the state of Illinois!

There is no way to file a complaint because there is no information the FTC can use to find these people.

Keeping them on the line doesn't solve your problem. They'll just call again. The dialers are automatic and if the number isn't removed it will just come up in the list again.

Re:Happy until recently

[KGIII]

Call 'em back. Inbound toll-free calls are expensive, outbound is rather cheap. Just the connect fee costs quite a bit.

Re:Happy until recently

[Obfuscant]

Call 'em back. Inbound toll-free calls are expensive,

The numbers are either invalid or belong to someone else. That's why they use them in their spoofed caller id. They aren't stupid enough to spoof the name and then let their real number be displayed.

Re:Happy until recently

[Lord Apathy]

I did something like that a few years back. Some fucking company trying to sell me life insurance kept calling and would leave dozens of messages on my machine. (I really didn't need any life insurance since I don't plan on ever dying.) They even filled up the damn machine one day.

I got the 800 number from the message, rigged up a script that would use the modem to dial back over and over. It went on for about 3 weeks till I lifted up the phone and heard that line has been disconnected message.

Re:Happy until recently

[KGIII]

It has been a few years since I have had to deal with these types of calls until the past week or two when I've not been in the mood to play. (My mother passed away so I'm fielding all those calls she used to deal with.) So far none of them have spoofed either the name or the number to the best of my knowledge. Emphasis on "to the best of my knowledge." There skeptical ones come up as "private."

Re:Happy until recently

[ChrisMP1]

It says something pretty sad about the phone system that CID even can be spoofed, doesn't it? How crappy are the phone company's systems that you can insert random data into communications between the phone company and the person being called? It can't be that hard to just cut off sound while CID is being sent.

Re:Happy until recently

[Obfuscant]

It can't be that hard to just cut off sound while CID is being sent.

I am not sure of the technical details, and I'm sure there are people here who are but haven't responded yet, but I think this is close.

They aren't sending the tones to the caller id box, they are using a certain kind of bulk phone line which allows them to specify the caller id information on the outgoing call. This is what big companies use to feed their PBX systems. Companies where certain extensions have visible external numbers, but many extensions don't. They send the generic id for internal lines calling out; specific id for sales reps and others who want to get recognized.

This also isn't the same as the ANI information that is used to bill a long distance call.

I don't know the technical names for this, just the concept.

Re:Happy until recently

[mrchaotica]

It says something pretty sad about the phone system that CID even can be spoofed, doesn't it? How crappy are the phone company's systems...

Sad and crappy, nothing! The phone company allows this on purpose: you pay to get caller ID, the tele-fraudsters pay to block their number, you pay to override their block, they pay to override your override. The phone company wins.

Re:Happy until recently

[adolf]

No.

CID is easy to "spoof," so that everything from PBX systems (with direct extensions and/or call transfers), and companies like Vonage (or, more importantly, the large slew of random VOIP providers out there), can work.

It's not about making money, per se, but about making these services simply work. If CID were automatic, as so many ignorant people here seem to suggest that it ought to be, our telecom service choices would probably still consist of the RBOCs, or silence.

 

Not the end state

[smittyoneeach]

If things move to the point where it is socially unacceptable to bother people at home, then this is a good transitional state.
No one bothers people on cell phones. Probably due to pricing. Interesting, how the flat rate for the home line makes spamming people somehow acceptable.

Re:Not the end state

[BadAnalogyGuy]

No, they don't bother people on cellphones because it is illegal. It has nothing to do with pricing.

Re:Not the end state

[martinw89]

That doesn't seem to stop the text message spam and occasional bogus calls I get. I just don't answer anything that's not in my phonebook at this point.

Re:Not the end state

[jeffmeden]

If you get cellphone spam I truly feel sorry for your personal information, it must be on every bathroom wall in the US.

I have been using a personal cellphone as my primary contact number for the better part of a decade, and to date have only received two spam texts (when I was with Nextel, 6 years ago) and not a single unsolicited sales phonecall. About twice a year, someone dials a wrong number and gets me, to which I politely tell them that no, there is little chance that Joe Bob Jackson Seefus Jr. lives even NEAR me.

Re:Not the end state

[omris]

My understanding of WHY it was illegal to bother people on cell phones though was that it costs money to the person you're calling. Unlike landlines which only charge for outgoing calls.

Like a collection agency cannot cost you money in an attempt to collect what you owe them and likewise can't call cell lines.

At least that's the way of it in my home state.

Re:Not the end state

[Bemopolis]

No one bothers people on cell phones.

A statement that is only technically correct. All of the telemarketing calls I get on my cellphone are recorded messages.

Re:Not the end state

[Hatta]

No one bothers people on cell phones.

But people on cell phones bother everyone.

Re:Not the end state

[nategoose]

I get informed that the factory warranty on my car is about to expire about once a week on my cell phone. Second time it happened I stayed on the phone long enough (ie past the recording) to ask them about this warranty that was about to expire on my car, which is ~15 years old. Since they didn't even know who I was or what kind of car I had. I'm pretty sure they were telemarketer con-persons.

Re:Not the end state

[gEvil (beta)]

No one bothers people on cell phones.

This is because it's already illegal thanks to the TCPA.

Re:Not the end state

[smittyoneeach]

Aye, particularly when making a sandwich, putting on makeup, correcting the children, and, oh, driving the SUV.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they do bother people on cell phones. I used to get calls constantly...put it on the list and they stopped. I live in TX, btw, if that makes a difference, legally.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

No one bothers people on cell phones.

Actually, I make a habit of using a jackhammer nearby when someone is on the phone.

Re:Not the end state

[Sparr0]

Which is doubly illegal, at a minimum. Those people are liable for severe civil penalties. I just moved to GA and am familiarizing myself with the legal system here so that I can begin to exact my revenge on companies that autodial my cell phone number. And by "companies" I mean "political advocacy groups".

Re:Not the end state

[bonkeydcow]

I get spam phone calls to my cell in spanish. Also get spam texts. A few years back people around here used to get spam text from some kind of social networking site saying "Jane Doe (or whoever) wants to be your friend."

Re:Not the end state

[Obfuscant]

I'm pretty sure they were telemarketer con-persons.

If I had mod points, I'd mark this "redundant". Not the whole article, just the words "telemarketer" and "con-persons".

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Codger]

Illegal or not, over the past year I've gotten a huge number of telemarketing calls on my cell. Since putting it on the do-not-call list those calls have stopped.

Re:Not the end state

[urcreepyneighbor]

If you get cellphone spam I truly feel sorry for your personal information, it must be on every bathroom wall in the US.

4155557368@mycellprovider.com.

Re:Not the end state

[hedwards]

The expense is an excuse for why it's banned on cellphones and not to landlines.

The real reason was cell phone users weren't willing to tolerate unsolicited calls to their cell phones. Yes, it's because people were having to pay for the calls, but if land line users would stand up like that to unsolicited calls of any sort they too would be banned. Or at least the bulk of the calls that were placed purposefully would be.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

No one bothers people on cell phones.

Yeah, no one except the %#$&*@! Massachusetts Volunteer Firefighters Association. 11 calls from Unavailable between June 25 and July 8, all around the same set of times (8am/12pm/3pm/6pm). I answered the first one and told them that I didn't want their decal and I wasn't giving them $10, I ignored the next 9, then I answered the last one, once more told them that I was not interested (multiple times) and requested to be removed from their list. I hope those bastards burn in hell.

Re:Not the end state

[i.r.id10t]

Once a week? You are lucky... we get 'em 3 or 4 times a day, all from different numbers/area codes, to not only departmental numbers but to our (personal) desk numbers as well... funny thing is that I actually sat and listened to try and get a new warranty so I could find out the responsible company... no info given as to how to actually get one!

Re:Not the end state

[bondsbw]

4155557368@mycellprovider.com.

Wow, you must really hate your ex! Posting this on Slashdot is like putting your Social Security Number on the side of a truck and telling people that your identity can't be stolen.

Re:Not the end state

[Jherek Carnelian]

Like a collection agency cannot cost you money in an attempt to collect what you owe them and likewise can't call cell lines.

What state is that? My cell# ended up being 'stolen' by some deadbeat and I regularly get collection agencies calling - its to the point I never answer unless I recognize the caller-id and they always leave voice-mail about "an extremely important matter."

Re:Not the end state

[Amarok.Org]

I feel your pain. I really wish Shaniqua (I wish I was making that up - they're always looking for Shaniqua) would stop giving out my cell phone number on the debts she plans to skip.

Re:Not the end state

[lgw]

No personal numbers have a 555 prefix. It's like example.com (except the phone company actually gave a few of it's own numbers a 555 prefix for some unknown reason).

Re:Not the end state

[Amarok.Org]

Massachusetts Volunteer Firefighters Association

...

I hope those bastards burn in hell

I suspect they've got a fighting chance at avoiding that particular fate...

Re:Not the end state

[lgw]

I don't know about GA, but everywhere I've lived the politicians have carefully written the laws to give themselves an exemption from any prohibition, including autodialers. Quite annoying, really.

Re:Not the end state

[lgw]

Someone mod this guy informative! I've been getting these calls and my car warrentee did, in fact, just expire. No doubt that's the scam: call everyone, and a significant percentage will believe you have some connection to their auto manufacturer, because you "knew" their warentee was expiring. Nasty.

Re:Not the end state

[pavon]

A few years ago I was getting several text spams a month for about three months. Most of them were in spanish, and for things like vacation packages. The cell company must have cracked down on them because I stopped getting them before they got bad enough for me to block texting altogether (my friends rarely use it, and I don't think I've ever sent one). I think it may have happened shortly after Verizon setup their email to text gateway, but I'm not certain about that.

Re:Not the end state

[spydum]

I'm guessing it's more likely they would burn on the job, than in hell.

Re:Not the end state

[Lord Apathy]

I've had my current cell for a number of years now. I really can't figure out how I did it but some how I rigged my phone not to ring if your not in my phonebook. I have no clue how I did it but it works. It is the main feature on my phone, nokia 6820, that is why I won't part with it.

One of the monkeys down the phone store tried to talk me into a new palm beast with a 300 price tag. I told him why I kept the old one and he called bullshit until I showed him. He still insists that it is impossible.

My saying is if my phone doesn't know you I don't want to talk to you.

Re:Not the end state

[Nerdposeur]

No, there is little chance that Joe Bob Jackson Seefus Jr. lives even NEAR me.

Because... your neighborhood is really really exclusive?

Re:Not the end state

[knight24k]

We were getting them 3 times a day to the phone in our conference room at the Corporate Headquarters. I thought that was rather funny and then I took a Cisco training class at the Cisco office and their phone in the training room got the same call 3 times in 4 days. The entire class was pretty much laughing their collective asses off when the instructor put it on speaker to answer it the first time.

Re:Not the end state

[Sparr0]

I am referring to the TCPA, a federal law. State politicians can go suck it.

Re:Not the end state

[lgw]

That federal law was carefully written by politicians to provide themselves with an exemption from any prohibitions. I'd bet that most of those political advocacy groups are calling you legally.

Re:Not the end state

[afidel]

You probably set it to use custom ringtones only and just never assigned a ringtone to 'unknown', just a guess.

Re:Not the end state

[sconeu]

North Carolina Police Officers Association.

They called me to ask for money. I live in California.

Re:Not the end state

[PitaBred]

You're lucky you just get spam... I get collectors looking for some "Jose" all the time. Apparently my number either used to belong to a deadbeat or was used by some twit to sign up for some credit.

Re:Not the end state

[LandDolphin]

Start filling complaints. You can get info on filling here: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/donotcall/

Re:Not the end state

[LandDolphin]

I get these also. The worse part? The car was wrecked/totaled almost 3 years ago!

Re:Not the end state

[drinkypoo]

I seem to recall that it's possible on Motorola as well, but only by seem hacking. Or by turning "Ringer ID" on and setting the ringer for that style to silent, then manually setting a ringtone for every phonebook entry. There's probably some external tool to do this efficiently, but I don't know what it would be.

Re:Not the end state

[Red Flayer]

I've been getting this one to.

Record the call (inform them you are doing so). Have fun asking them what company they are calling on behalf of, and what company they actually work for. Ask them to add you to both their DNC lists.

Do this every time they call.

I've got four of these calls recorded, I'm waiting for the 5th so I can pass go and collect $200. (Actually more than that... though I doubt I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever collecting).

Re:Not the end state

[drinkypoo]

It's true, you shouldn't try to do all those things at once. You might get mayo on the steering wheel.

Re:Not the end state

[drinkypoo]

I got that same message twice on my cellphone, which is in the 707-245 even though I live nowhere near there. :P (It's annoying because people in my same town where I live and where I told my cellphone company I live have to pay a toll call to talk to me.) I actually reported the second one.

Re:Not the end state

[OldMiner]

This is something you can fix.

Ask the collector for their contact number, company name, the caller's name, and what they are calling regarding. Write this down along with the time they call. If they are a collections agency, they will be fairly short with you because (1) they're dicks -- hey that's what a collection agency is for -- and (2) by law they're not allowed to disclose anything related to the person's debt. Tell them that you don't know who this person is and to never call you at this number again. By law, even if you were Shaniqua, they have to stop calling you if you tell them to do so, cell phone or not. It becomes harassment beyond that point, and an interstate crime at that.

If they call you again, do the same process, insure you have the same place, and then go to the FTC's website and file a complaint. Repeat offenders get fined out of existence. Complaining to the BBB can also be of value, but hardly any collections or repossession companies are "better" businesses in any fashion.

Re:Not the end state

[nategoose]

Well part of the reason I actually waited to talk to the person was that I was about to have to pay $1200 to get my tranmission rebuilt and was wishful thinking that I might actually have a warrenty.

Re:Not the end state

[Sparr0]

Read it yourself. For the type of legislation that it is, it is surprisngly light reading. It is quite illegal for anyone to "robodial" a cell phone number. There isn't even an opt-in clause, when you get the local radio station to call you with school closings, they are breaking the law when their machine calls your cell, whether you asked for it or not.

Re:Not the end state

[LandDolphin]

Wow!

I am sitting here at work, and I just got one of these calls on the work phone! It did not say a name, so I don't know who it was for. But that was crazy timing ot get a phoen call after posting/reading about them.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, particularly when making a sandwich, putting on makeup, correcting the children, and, oh, driving the SUV.

Thanks for the bitchfest. Arguably, only one of those activities might be a concern - though it probably shouldn't if you are rational. By making bogus complaints you further delegitimize any marginally suitable complaint. For that, thanks. Seriously. (I mean it!)

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want to know, just download the user manual, or dig it out of the drawer where you stashed it, and it will explain how to program your phone.

Re:Not the end state

[gblues]

Any phone that allows custom ring tones on a per-caller basis can do this. Here's how:

1) Set the default ringtone to "None"
2) For each person in your phonebook, set a custom ringtone of your choice.
3) As you add people to the phonebook, remember to set their ringtone.

The above can be further simplified if your phone supports groups and per-group ringtones; you set your group ringtone once, then make sure people in your phonebook are in that group.

You might miss a call or two if the number is blocked.. but that's what voice mail is for. Usually helps if you explain it in the voicemail message, but that's up to you of course. :)

Nathan

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a pick up line somewhere in this, if you think about it long enough.

Re:Not the end state

[Jherek Carnelian]

It doesn't work like that.
Bad debts get resold from one agency to another.
In theory, each time it gets sold, it is cheaper (because there is less chance of collecting if everybody else has failed to collect so far).
Anyway, each new agency starts off with the same information, they don't pay heed to anything like do-not-call information from the previous agency's efforts (after all, that might be the reason the previous agency failed to collect).

Re:Not the end state

[clampolo]

You do have some rights. Tell them they have the wrong number. If they still continue to call, then tell them that you are forbidding them to call you. By law, once you tell a bill collector not to call you about a debt, they are forbidden to call you again.

Re:Not the end state

[Aero Leviathan]

The word is synchronicity. Enjoy.

Re:Not the end state

[syberdave]

Yes, that's true.

http://xlr8.us/hofo/map.txt
You have to turn on "Call Restriction Support" and "Security > Settings > Restrict Calls".

Google for details.

Re:Not the end state

[LandDolphin]

I will. I always enjoy something new to read on Wikipedia.

Re:Not the end state

[Lord Apathy]

Probably was done like that but I refuse to dig out the manual or even attempt to figure out how I did it. I'm classifying this as deep magic and like all magic as soon as I try to figure out how it works I'm going to figure out it can be done. Then it will stop working.

Re:Not the end state

[TooMuchToDo]

So what you're saying is we need a smartphone app similar to Adblock Plus for Firefox. I'd love if my phone would pull down an autodialer originating number list and refused those calls automatically.

Re:Not the end state

[statemachine]

I prefer the second version.

Re:Not the end state

[urcreepyneighbor]

No personal numbers have a 555 prefix.

Bingo.

Let's dissect the number I posted: 415=SF Bay Area, 555=generic prefix, 7368=SDOT.

Most cell spam is sent via email.

Re:Not the end state

[a1ok]

Many autodialers just block the caller id so a number list might not be too useful, though of course the app should also allow blocking all unknown numbers as well.

Considering all the 'smart' phones around nowadays, I wonder why none of them have such features - another one I would love to see is recording calls, to use during any calls to customer service centers.

Re:Not the end state

[drinkypoo]

I enabled that option already, I thought it prevented people from even calling you. You mean it just stops the phone from ringing? ... Nope, looks like they get sent straight to voicemail. The feature that's REALLY needed is separate rings for those who are or aren't in the phone book. How annoying.

Re:Not the end state

[mrchaotica]

My girlfriend and I have been getting those too. It's illegal on several levels:

• They aren't allowed to call cell phones
• They aren't allowed to block the caller ID
• They aren't allowed to call with an automated message instead of a real person
• The whole thing is a scam anyway

I keep meaning to file a police report, but I'm too lazy.

Re:Not the end state

[mrchaotica]

Have fun asking them what company they are calling on behalf of, and what company they actually work for.

They won't tell you; they'll just hang up. These aren't just telemarketers, they're genuine criminals: the warranties are frauds and the calls (even the first calls) are illegal.

Re:Not the end state

[Dan541]

My understanding of WHY it was illegal to bother people on cell phones though was that it costs money to the person you're calling. Unlike landlines which only charge for outgoing calls.

It's not the 1980s anymore I've never heard of phone companies chaging to recive anything.

The problem with landlines is you can make calls for free a mobile costs money to call, but even thats dirt cheap these days, unless your a spammer making thousands of calls a day. It's a good system and one that has been suggested for email (but thats another matter).

Re:Not the end state

[Dan541]

Take it up with the cops, Im sure harassment is not legal.

Re:Not the end state

[omris]

Look closely at your phone bill. A cellular phone bill charges you minutes for both incoming and outgoing calls, whereas a landline will charge you only for outgoing calls.

Even though it's not the 80's, that's how they run the racket.

Re:Not the end state

[infonography]

Hi

Can I have your number too, I want to buy gas for a Hummer so I need a loan.

                                          -Jo Se

(yes I am joking)

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a similar feature in the LG 8300, in that you can make particular numbers not ring. For some reason, I get quite a few wrong numbers, and people have been calling "Will" at my number for the last 3 years. I no longer answer an unrecognized caller, but if he calls twice in a row without leaving a message, I render his number silent. This is a most excellent feature. The phone still lights up when the call comes in, and the caller is free to leave a message. If he turns out to be legit, he is added to my phonebook.

Re:Not the end state

[Lord Apathy]

Pretty much the same here. While my phone doesn't ring when the caller is unknown it does light up and the number is still displayed on the caller id. After a few moments the call gets dumped to voice mail where they are free to leave a message. If I know them then I'll add them to my phone book. If they don't leave a message, fuck'em.

Re:Not the end state

[PunkOfLinux]

Yeah, those things are almost always scams. Not saying you're stupid, just putting it out there for all the people who don't know.

Re:Not the end state

[Dan541]

No it's not.

I have never been charged to recive anything.
I get the bill every months looking closer won't reveal something that's not there.

You must have a dodgy provider.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

On a phone that supports custom rings for contacts/groups of contacts, I suppose you could set those to a ring and the default to be silent...interesting. I'm going to have to see if I can do that on my phone now.

Re:Not the end state

[ShakaUVM]

You're lucky... all the taped telemarkers that call me call my fax machine.

Re:Not the end state

[Taelron]

They can call cell all they want, you pay for the call, not them. Its not illegal at all. In fact its recommended you register your cell number on the DNL too. Many people are doing away with their home lines and only using cells.

There are to many loop-holes in the DNL now.
- You have to Opt out and you have to remember to check your own status and reregister every couple of years
- Government organizations, polsters, government campaigns, and charities can still call you
- Any company you do business with and give your number to, as well as any of their partner companys they trade information with are exempted from the DNL for a period of two years from your last business with them and may call.
- The website actually states when you post a complaint that they dont actually review them unless they receive X number of complaints from the same number within a 30 day span.
- To get around the DNL many companys are using out of country call centers and/or using Caller ID masking services such as that offered by a Florida company (notice strange characters or impossible numbers calling you?)

The actual action rate is very low. Where I live near San Francisco I get calls from A-1 carpet cleaners 3 to 4 times a year. They will call 3 times a day for a period of up to 5 days straight. Its always a recorded message about carpet services and if you call it back usually its just an empty line. Websites like, whocalled.us, have numerous complaints about them. Pages in fact and many have said they have reported them to the DNL. I know I have several times, and here it is 3 or 4 years now and I am still getting these calls.

And yet the government hasnt done anything. A-1, like other companies, are skirting the DNL by gambling on the complaint within 30 day quota to avoid getting busted.

Re:Not the end state

[bhiestand]

No one bothers people on cell phones. Probably due to pricing.

This depends on the area you live in and the pricing schemes there. In the US, the mobile user pays for the minutes whether they're the ones calling or receiving, but the person initiating the call is not charged any fees. In most other parts of the world, a person initiating a call to a mobile phone is charged for the call. In Japan, this is implemented with a numbering system that differentiates between land lines and cell phone numbers.

Re:Not the end state

[omris]

Most of the carriers in the US charge for both incoming and outgoing calls. Call it dodgy if you like. It's simply their business model. Receiving calls will use minutes in your cellular plan just as making a call will.

If you happen to have one of the few plans that doesn't, lucky you. You still get protected by the law preventing collection agents from calling your cellular line. And that was the theory behind WHY the law exists.

Re:Not the end state

[sconeu]

Didn't think you were calling me stupid. Told 'em "Not interested. Put me on your DNC list. click."

Re:Not the end state

[ineedbettername]

On my phone it's under Call Settings > Call Restrictions. Just FYI.

Re:Not the end state

[PachmanP]

Yeah that was me. Just tell them my new number is 401-321-7654.

Re:Not the end state

[Dan541]

Im in Australia,

We have a very good cell system over here.

The thought of actually being charged to recive anything is unheard of here. We have 3 Main GSM operators who cover almost all the population, this stops the monopoly situation you often have in the states.

I feel bad for you guys in the U.S. Im always hearing of ways you get ripped off.

Re:Not the end state

[Anonymous Coward]

Aye, particularly when making a sandwich, putting on makeup, correcting the children, and, oh, driving the SUV.

And there's a bee in the car, annoyed that the driver is also smoking...

Re:Not the end state

[pmdkh]

- You have to Opt out and you have to remember to check your own status and reregister every couple of years

FYI, you do not have to reregister your number every few years. The Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007 changed that.

Link

Direct Link to report

[Madball]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P034305FY0dncreport.pdf I'm still reviewing it, but for doing what it's defined role is, it seems to do it well (notwithstanding the exceptions for politicians, charities, etc).

Check up on your state laws

[PlatyPaul]

Even if you're registered on the national list, I highly recommend that you check into state laws (and lists, if they have them), as there are variations in what is and isn't protected.

For fellow New Yorkers, here is the official NYS law regarding "Do Not Call".

Re:Check up on your state laws

[Drathos]

When the FTC started their DNC, a lot of states got rid of their own lists and pointed people to the FTC list.

Don't get me wrong...

[Thelasko]

I love the Do Not Call Registry. I'm just concerned about it's ramifications to the first amendment.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[bucky0]

You have the right to say what you want. You don't have the guarantee of an audience.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sm62704]

You have freedom of speech, not freedom to bother me. "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

Your freedom of speech does not extend to standing on the sidewalk outside my residence with a bullhorn. My right to ignore you supercedes your right to speak.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[LWATCDR]

Actually the seemed to have worked out a good balance. A lot of people are crabbing about the exceptions but those exceptions are for the protection of political and religious speech.
Commercial speech has less protections which is why cigarette companies can not advertise on TV and such.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[MyNymWasTaken]

That's why it's an opt-out registry. The first amendment doesn't force people to listen against their will to what you have to say.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[gstoddart]

I love the Do Not Call Registry. I'm just concerned about it's ramifications to the first amendment.

What, your first amendment right to call me in the middle of dinner to try to sell me a carpet cleaning service? Or to have a robo-dialer which will leave me answering a phone with nobody on the other end?

Individuals have first amendment rights. I've never bought the argument that companies have the same thing. I fail to see why we should protect the ability of companies to make unsolicited calls to people who don't want them. Are you saying spam should be protected speech too?

Besides, if you are going to do this kind of call, wouldn't it be better to get a list of the people who you know aren't interested rather than hearing me tell you to "fuck off" for the 3rd time this week?

I realize the poor schmuck on the other end of the phone is just doing a job -- but, I don't give a crap and I don't owe him any politeness. If you show up on my doorstep and aggressively won't leave or keep coming back when I tell you to, I'm gonna knock your ass down. If you call me, I'm going tell you exactly once nicely -- there after, you're not getting nice. (And, believe me, I've been called 20 times in two weeks by the same organization. There's no point in politely explaining after the 1st time.)

Cheers

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sobachatina]

Wait... Are you trying to say that 911 is a vehicle of free speech? If the 911 operator didn't answer it would be a violation of my rights? That having a 911 operator proves that I have a right to an audience?

I don't get it. Was that a joke somehow?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Thelasko]

Commercial speech has less protections which is why cigarette companies can not advertise on TV and such.

Valid and insightful

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[bucky0]

If 911 doesn't answer, that's a violation of the First Amendment? I don't follow. Did you drop a sarcasm tag?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Obfuscant]

Actually the seemed to have worked out a good balance. A lot of people are crabbing about the exceptions but those exceptions are for the protection of political and religious speech.

No, they aren't. They are for the protection of politicians and pollsters hired by politicians who want to be able to call you at election time to remind you to vote.

Your freedom of speech is not interfered with in any way by my telling you not to call me. You can stand at your phone and speak all you want. The laws aren't supposed to guarantee you an audience. They aren't supposed to let you use my property to conduct your speech.

I should have the same ability to tell The Mormon Church or Joe's Political Polling Company not to ever call me that I do in telling Sears Roebuck not to call me. I do not want to EVER hear from any of those three; I should be able to preemtively opt-out using the DNC list from all of them.

To claim otherwise means I must opt-out individually, and there are simply too many pollsters and politicians and religious and charitable organizations to make that viable.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Sloppy]

911 failing to answer is an undesirable situation, not an infringement of rights.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[LWATCDR]

Sorry but that is no different than people protesting or putting political signs up or stopping you to ask you to sign a petition.
You can ask them to never call you again, you can hang up on them.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Waffle Iron]

I bet you would be singing a different tune if 911 didn't answer~

911 is for cases not covered by free speech. For example, you call 911 if there's a fire in a crowded theater.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[cparker15]

I don't get it. Was that a joke somehow?

Judging from his signature, I would say “yes”.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

If freedom of speech tolerates putting protesters out-of-sight in cages at the RNC/DNC, surely it can tolerate blocking the fifty or so political robocalls that come in over a service I pay for and intrude on my personal space and time.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[PapaBoojum]

Sorry but that is no different than people protesting or putting political signs up or stopping you to ask you to sign a petition.

Actually it is completely different. Protesters can not legally enter my home and annoy me. Someone can not enter my home uninvited to bug me to sign a petition.

Why should ANYONE I do not want to talk to be allowed to pester me in my own home?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[LWATCDR]

But they can knock on your door to ask you to sign a petition.
Calling on a phone is not the same as entering your home. Buy having a phone legally you are saying that you are willing to be called. Since you do not pay for incoming calls they are not using your resources just your time.
No different than a protester that slows you do or someone taking your time asking you to sign a petition.
I am not saying it isn't a pain. Heck I was totally annoyed by some evil moronic demonic people that wanted me to sing a petition that would with hold medical services from the children if illegal immigrants! But they have the right to try and legally do something that I find extremely evil.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Jherek Carnelian]

"Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

Many people would argue that your nose "begins" at the root, where it has grown outward from your face. It certainly didn't start out floating in free space and eventually connect up to your face as you grew older.

Which suggests an entirely different meaning to that phrase than you probably meant.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercial speech is not considered pure free speech as governed by the 1st Amendment.

Otherwise, what you said is untrue. Unless your residence has a specific place and manner restriction on someone using a bullhorn in front of your sidewalk (a noise ordinance, perhaps) then, yes, his freedom of speech does extend there.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[hedwards]

It is completely different. If they call my number, there is only 1 person they can expect to get, me.

If you put up a sign, then you're almost assuredly going to reach more than just 1 person.

These people do not have a constitutional right to waste my time and tie up my line.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[lgw]

He explicitly used a sarcasm tag, oddly enough.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sm62704]

Unless your residence has a specific place and manner restriction on someone using a bullhorn in front of your sidewalk

The Constitution doe not grant rights to citizens; it defines the limits of governmental powers. And although IANAL I'm quite sure that even if there were no noise ordinances in my neighborhood, I could get a judgement against someone with a bullhorn on the street by my house.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sm62704]

1. Note the quotation marks around the phrase? Thet denotes that it is not my words; I am QUOTING.

2. Your use of the word "begins" is out of context

3. You forgot your <pedant> tag ;)

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[bucky0]

Your signature is the most ridiculous thing:

You're pulling what this guy tried to pull

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[drinkypoo]

Sorry but that is no different than people protesting or putting political signs up or stopping you to ask you to sign a petition.

Putting up political signs on public property is littering and thus illegal. (There are sometimes also specific statutes against it.)

Putting up your political signs on my property is probably vandalism, maybe littering, and is illegal either way.

You can only put up your political signs on your property. Also, you can only protest if you're not causing a nuisance. You have the right to peaceably assemble. Not to make an ass of yourself.

You were saying?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your statement about the bullhorn is only correct for commercial speech. I used to live near the UN, and spent many evenings listening to political speech on bullhorns.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Todd Knarr]

And while you have a right to put up a political sign, you do not have a right to put up a political sign on my property without my permission. This is not held to be an infringement of you right to free speech. You aren't being stopped from "speaking" on your own property, or on public property, or on the property of anyone who gives you permission to use it. You're just being stopped from infringing on someone else's right to control their own property. Roughly summarized, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.".

And yes, it's my phone line. If it isn't, why am I the one paying the bill for it every month?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[solarce]

Another potential Diane's Steam Carpet Cleaning customer? :D

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[PapaBoojum]

But they can knock on your door to ask you to sign a petition.

Granted.

I would love it if 'no solicitors' and 'no trespassing' signs were truly enforceable everywhere in the US - without loopholes. I also wish I could place a true 'no solicitors' block on my phone (the current DNC list which has too many loopholes).

But they have the right to try and legally do something that I find extremely evil.

I don't think it's a 'right' so much as something that the law simply does not currently prohibit (at least during reasonable hours).

If tomorrow the feds implemented a true 'no charity/politician/etc loophole' DNC, or allowed true 'no trespassing' signs, what 'rights' of those who want to pester me are being violated?

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot dadinportland@yahoo.com. There.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Drathos]

My stance on religious and political speech is "Believe what you want, but don't you dare try to force it on me."

That being said, the local bible thumpers knock on my door every couple of weeks, mail me hand written letters, and call my phone. For all they know, I could be an avid churchgoer, but they don't check. They are basically carpet bombing the area.

Add to that all the political calls I get. 4 in 90 minutes from the "Democratic party" last week, all with the exact same script. My answering machine overloaded with pre-recorded smear campaign messages during the last election. When I don't answer the political calls, a lot leave a message on my answering machine saying "This was a political survey call. We'll call back." NO! I didn't answer because I don't want to take your fucking call!

There is no balance here. Freedom of speech is not freedom of harassment.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sm62704]

Depends on your locality. Noise ordinances are constitutional.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[sobachatina]

Thanks,

I had signatures turned off- the '~' didn't mean anything to me.

In my defense- it was a pretty bad joke.

Still too many loopholes

[elrous0]

I don't get nearly as many telemarketing calls as I used to, but I've noticed (and oth ers have too) that many telemarketers who call me still exploit two major loopholes in the law:

• The "if you've done business with me in the recent past" loohole--A lot of credit card companies are essentially selling telemarketers the rights to call you on their behalf (if you have one of their credit cards). So now instead of getting calls that say "Hi, I would like to sell you product A" I'm getting calls that say "Hi, I'm calling on behalf of Discover. I would like to sell you product A." A new low even by credit card company standards.
• The "polls, research, charities" loophole--Now I get a lot of calls from companies claming to be doing market research or polls, when they're actually just trying to sell something. I also get calls from for-profit companies who've somehow scammed their way into 501(c)(3) non-profit status, trying to pass themselves off as a charity as they hawk their product to me.

Overall, things have improved a great deal. My telemarketing calls have probably dropped by about 75% since this law was introduced. But I still get WAY more than I should be getting (which should be none). Until they close these loopholes, a landline is still a bit of a pain in the ass.

Fortunately, both groups use computer autodialers which let me spot them very easily. If there is even the slightest pause after I say "Hello?" I know it's a telemarker (a normal person will respond immediately, an autodialer takes a little time to connect you with a live salesman). I've also found it helpful to always give my voicemail number at work as my "phone number" with any new company I do business with (telemarketers never leave messages).

I have a cousin who actually LOVES to get telemarketing calls, though. He has found all kinds of creative ways to screw with them. He will try to keep them on the line as long as possible, encouraging them with lots of questions and feigned interest, only to tell them "No" at the end (time is money for telemarketers). He will ask them "Hey could you hang on just a minute?" then put the phone down and go watch TV. My personal favorite is when he responds to them with "EXCUSE ME, but I'm trying to masturbate here!"

Re:Still too many loopholes

[MrMunkey]

I know for a fact that your first loophole does exist. The time limit is 18 months since the last time you contacted them that they can call you back. That also pertains to finishing any business you have with them as well. I used to work in the student loan industry, and it was really common for Freshmen to call and want to consolidate their loans for a lower interest rate. The problem with that was that they couldn't consolidate until they got out of school (graduated or otherwise). If they didn't call back before 18 months, then we could not call them again to remind them of their interest in consolidating. I can't remember if it also applied to sending them something in the mail, but I doubt it.

We hadn't ever tried selling on behalf of another company, but I can see how a greedy PHB would think of that.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

(time is money for telemarketers)

Apparently it's not for your cousin. Must be nice to have nothing better to do all day than waste time talking to spammers. If you could relay this insult to your cousin, I would greatly appreciate it. KTHXBAI

Re:Still too many loopholes

[swb]

The biggest problem I have anymore are totally automated systems that play a recorded message. I don't know why, but I get these more than anything else from all comers (lowlifes who really ought not be calling, charities, politicians, etc), and I thought they were illegal in Minnesota, too.

What's even more irritating is that the people behind this technology have it mastered to leave a perfect message on your answering machine, and if you do pick up the phone there's no way to challenge them and tell them to take you off their list (which pre-DNC was actually pretty successful for me). If they leave a phone number, I call back and demand to be removed from their list and if I get any static ("That's another department" or "we can't process that request") I contact the AG's office with the company name and tell them they are not honoring DNC requests.

The charities are really the worst, probably since they are using pro fund raisers who pass on a small percentage for the privilege of shilling under a "charitable" name.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[gnick]

You missed a loophole - My personal bane. I get calls regularly with a recorded message asking me if I'd like to save money on my credit card bills - Caller ID blocked & no identification on the line. The only options are to press '1' to indicate interest or hang up. I've pressed '1' twice. The first time, I asked repeatedly who I was talking to. At first, he told me that "I work for Mastercard and Visa". I pressed on because that's obviously BS. He eventually told me that he "worked for 250 different banks". When I asked who actually signed his checks, he hung up on me. The second time I clicked through, I pretended to have significant credit card debt that I wanted to finance but acted skeptical because of the Caller ID block and eventually got to a supervisor. After the "Visa and Mastercard" and "250 different banks" responses, he told me that he worked for American General Finance.

Here's the rub, though. If they'd have called me, it would obviously be illegal. And whoever did call me was violating the Do Not Call rules. But by the time I got through to American General Finance, I had (by pressing '1') expressed an interest in doing business with them and they were kind enough to hang up on me when I made it clear that that was not the case. They won't tell me who they're contracting with making the illegal calls and frankly, I don't know how to find out.

Very frustrating.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[maxume]

I got a similar call. I was pretty sure that they were attempting to obtain my credit card information, not to help me consolidate my bills. Ya know, Phishing.

I took that they didn't want to reveal who they were as an indication that it was not a legitimate enterprise.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like your cousin can be a lot of fun for the telemarketers, makes their job more bearable. What about your cousin's time. Is it money too?

Re:Still too many loopholes

[snspdaarf]

I have a friend that does something similar ("Oh! The old 'I-have-a-friend-routine'! Sure, Buddy!"). When a telemarketer calls, he will interrupt them by saying, "You have a very sexy voice." For some reason, this seems to throw off the males more than the females. Anyway, if they continue, he will ask what they are wearing, if they wear perfume of cologne, anything that comes to mind. They usually hang up quick.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[AeroIllini]

I have a cousin who actually LOVES to get telemarketing calls, though. He has found all kinds of creative ways to screw with them. He will try to keep them on the line as long as possible, encouraging them with lots of questions and feigned interest, only to tell them "No" at the end (time is money for telemarketers). He will ask them "Hey could you hang on just a minute?" then put the phone down and go watch TV. My personal favorite is when he responds to them with "EXCUSE ME, but I'm trying to masturbate here!"

And all over the world, poor schmucks who are paying their way through graduate school by working as telemarketers get great stories to tell their buddies at the pub.

He's doing them a service!

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Chyeld]

You can still report them, especially since I'm fairly certain the rules regarding recorded messages are that they must provide a clear manner of contacting them to be removed from their calling list in the message (i.e. a live phone number not a "press 1 to..."

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also found it helpful to always give my voicemail number at work as my "phone number" with any new company I do business with (telemarketers never leave messages).

Why give your number at all? I generally just refuse to do so.

If they just won't take no for an answer and I'm not in the mood to just tell them to fuck off because I want to do business with them badly enough that I don't want to find another alternative, then my home number is 800-555-1212.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[elrous0]

Did I mention that my cousin is an unemployed stoner?

Re:Still too many loopholes

[elrous0]

I came in on the middle of one phone call and all I heard was him screaming "IT HURTS WHEN I PISS!!" at the telemarketer. Not sure what the wind-up on THAT one was (I was too scared to ask).

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Lord Apathy]

My personal favorite is when he responds to them with "EXCUSE ME, but I'm trying to masturbate here!"

I used to answer the phone nude too but for some reason it didn't have the same affect when I answer the door that way.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Austerity Empowers]

You still answer your phone? If I don't recognize it, I don't pick it up. Like you, down here in TX I get bombarded with people who are exploiting the loopholes. We just don't answer the phone anymore.

I wish the DNC registry had options for closing the loopholes. I don't want to hear about politicians, charities, or from people who I did business with, unless it's about current business.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[edschurr]

Can you do *57, "customer originated trace"? After they call, you hang up, do *57, and then follow up with the phone company, or something--I've never used it.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

"The "polls, research, charities" loophole--Now I get a lot of calls from companies claming to be doing market research or polls, when they're actually just trying to sell something. I also get calls from for-profit companies who've somehow scammed their way into 501(c)(3) [wikipedia.org] non-profit status, trying to pass themselves off as a charity as they hawk their product to me."

In the 5+ years that the DNC list has been out I haven't ever seen anyone who used the guise of being a legit charity or polling organization exploiting this to sell you something.

Re:Still too many loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not for you either, Mr. Anonymous Coward who has nothing better to do than to make insulting posts to slashdot.

Just a 70% approval rating?

[panaceaa]

Who are the 30% of people who don't approve of the Do Not Call list? The telemarketing industry is not that big. I don't think 30% of people are adamant enough to say that all telemarketing should be illegal, therefore they disapprove Do Not Call list: These people would probably be happy that there's something helping out. One statistic in the article showed that only 18% of respondents who placed themselves on the Do Not Call list now receive zero telemarketing calls, so maybe people don't feel the list is effective enough. But only 9% of respondents claimed no reduction in calls; 91% said the Do Not Call list reduced telemarketing calls. Yet these people still don't approve? I don't get it.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[geekoid]

Maybe they just think it needs to be better.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[Ethanol-fueled]

What do you mean just 70%?!

I think that we should toss out congress and put these guys in because they do the Right Thing(TM) AND the people love 'em. Ironically, stopping those annoying policital telemarketers would be enough to get the FTC/DNC into the oval office!

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[Thelasko]

Who are the 30% of people who don't approve of the Do Not Call list?

Invalids who realized they now have no one to talk to.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[Hatta]

I disapprove because it doesn't work well enough. There are too many loopholes.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[Sloppy]

When someone asks you a question about a complex thing and ridiculously demands a black-and-white answer (approve vs disapprove), that black-and-white answer isn't going to make sense.

Maybe a shockingly-low 30% of the people polled, thought telemarketing ought to be opt-in, for example. These people prefer a DNC list to the former situation and acknowledge that they are getting less spam now, but think that having a Yes Please Spam Me list instead, would be so much better, that they can't honestly say they approve of a Do Not Call list.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[cdrudge]

Interestingly enough, around the same number of people that don't approve of the DNC list also approve of the job the yahoos in Washington are doing. It's hard to imagine how anyone can think the Legislative and Executive branch are doing a good job. The economy is in the shitter. Absolutely no progress has been made in Iraq & Afghanistan in..well..forever. Iran is getting an itchy trigger finger. Gas is at an all time high. The national deficit is large enough that my grandkid's grandkids are still going to be paying it off...and that is only if we stop spending now. And pretty much everyone in Washington doesn't seem to have a problem with the erosion of Amendments 1-10 of the constitution. And yet 20-30% of people somehow think everything is just peachy and give a big thumbs up. It just means that more then an insignificant number of people are completely clueless, don't understand how to comprehend a survey question, and/or answer truthfully.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[Drathos]

I disapprove because, for me, it's been a failure. My call volume *increased* after signing up on the DNC. The groups who fit in the loopholes almost never called before I signed up, now they call at least once day. Overall, I'd say my call volume has increased ten-fold since I signed up, most of which has been dead silence on the other end of the line. The DNC complaint form doesn't work if you don't know who it was that called you. Block or forge Caller ID, then refuse to identify yourself and you have immunity from DNC complaints.

Re:Just a 70% approval rating?

[AK Marc]

Who are the 30% of people who don't approve of the Do Not Call list?

CAN SPAM was passed because states were passing laws against spam. The DNC list was made because states were passing laws. The Feds want all the power. The companies want one set of weak laws at the national level. The DNC list allows non-profits to call me when I don't want them to. The DNC won't let me sue people that violate it, which you could do with some of the state laws. The DNC list requires opt-in. The DNC list has expiry on the phone numbers in the list. There are a lot of problems with the DNC list. So, do you approve because it's better than nothing? Or do you disapprove because it's not what it should be? I get about the same number of calls. Most before were political or non-profits. The same is true now. Being on the DNC list did nothing to affect the number of calls I receive. So, a new law that does nothing for me and doesn't address the unwanted calls I receive once a day or so is not something I would "approve" of. But even if it did reduce my calls, I might not approve because of some of the other things I mentioned.

Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[the_macman]

My gf worked for a telemarketer for 1 week before she quit out of frustration. They used a computer system that had thousands of scripted responses for any reason imaginable a person would use to reject an offer. The phone numbers were automatically dialed by the computer and when a number popped up that was on the DNC list you got a warning message on your screen. Of course everyone was told to ignore the message and make the call anyways. We later reported them to the police.

Tele marketers can choose to ignore the DNC list.

Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[Madball]

My gf worked for a telemarketer for 1 week before she quit out of frustration. They used a computer system that had thousands of scripted responses for any reason imaginable a person would use to reject an offer. The phone numbers were automatically dialed by the computer and when a number popped up that was on the DNC list you got a warning message on your screen. Of course everyone was told to ignore the message and make the call anyways. We later reported them to the police. Tele marketers can choose to ignore the DNC list.

And I can choose to ignore stop signs, drug laws, et cetera. It doesn't make the law/list BS (which it may or may not be). The question is how effective is the policing of it--there are no cops waiting by your phone, so the onus is on you to report any violations.

Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[Madball]

Correction. The cops are eavesdropping, but they work for the NSA and they don't give a damn about the DNC List :P

Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[Bombula]

The question is how effective is the policing of it--there are no cops waiting by your phone, so the onus is on you to report any violations.

.

Yeah, but that's a pretty lame attitude by most people's standards and that's why we have statute law and regulatory law with criminal code instead of just civil cases where someone has to actually complain in order for something to be judged wrong.

There's also a solution here that should be the responsibility of the folks who make it all possible (namely, the telcos): there should be a telemarketer registry as well, and it should be a violation (with a massive great big fucking fine) for connecting a call from that registry to anything on the DNC registry. This could easily be a feature (opt-in or preferably opt-out) provided automatically with your phone service.

Also, there should also be a piss-easy way of reporting telemarketing violations (like hang up and dial *25 or whatever). As it stands, it's a huge pain in the ass - you have to ask for the number of the caller and make sure they're not calling from a masked/hidden number. And again, if a telemarketing company is caught making calls from unregistered numbers, then it gets whacked with those same gigantic fines.

Problem solved.

Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[ELProphet]

Telemarketers that choose to ignore the DNC list promptly get sued, as both you and the article point out.

Re:Sorry but the DNC list is bullshit

[sconeu]

So use the magic buzzword -- Terrorism.

Telemarketer: starts pitch
You: Are you a terrorist? Because only a terrorist would violate the law by calling a number on the Do Not Call list.
Telemarketer: Uh... uh....

Simple solution to telemarketers

[vorlich]

Put the television up rather loud, let them talk all the way through their script, agree that all the offers are very tempting (ahu, ahu) and then when you get an opportunity to ask a question, just say: "Do you think I will be able to get social security to pay for that?" ....buuuuurrr!

Re:Simple solution to telemarketers

[nickruiz]

I personally find that bawling like a Wookie seems to break up telemarketers' momentum.

I call it a win (albeit imperfect)

[Madball]

1. Cost onus is on the callers (i.e. I don't have to pay some fee to put my name on the list--the telemarketers have to pay to get it or risk breaking the law).

2. I have no idea what the costs associated with running the lists are, but 21M for 1 year in fees sounds pretty good. A government program that doesn't waste a lot of money--hallelujah.

3. It has the desired effect. 91% with decreased unwanted calls.

Re:I call it a win (albeit imperfect)

[Madball]

Written like a true 40 point IQ Lib-retard-ian. As long as the program doesn't cost you money you don't care what the benefits are.

The purpose of government is to control the people - that means business people too. It costs money to control those people - REAL MONEY.

Now go sit in the corner and play with yourselves.

Umh, OK.

The question was not whether this is an appropriate use of government. The question is, is it a success? (which to us that live in the real world means: did you accomplish your goals?)

No go sit in a corner and adjust your tinfoil hat.

Re:I call it a win (albeit imperfect)

[Hatta]

Decreased, but not eliminated. I get more phone spam than I do valid calls. Mainly because all I use my phone for is ordering Chinese food, but still.

Another reason to disapprove...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Another reason people might disapprove is that the Do Not Call list preempted state laws that let the person called sue for a nontrivial chunk of change. The federal law only allows the fed to fine and sue. Then the fed gets the money and the callee only gets more aggravation.

Complete failure from my perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

I have every number I own (about 7) in the dnc and I get more calls now than I've ever received. The companies took a year or so off but then the calls really started. The only difference is that outbound call centers are used that refuse to provide any information about who they are or for whom they're calling. They do everything they can to "qualify" you for a purchase and everything they can to avoid any identification of who they are until you're fully "qualified." I got a call about 10 minutes before seeing this posting and it's maddening. I don't see any effective enforcement and certainly no reduction in calls made to me.

Pay for access??

[Anonymous Coward]

telemarketers and sellers can access registered telephone numbers and pay the appropriate fee for that access

I'm confused, what exactly are they paying for?

Are they paying the FTC for permission to call those people even though they are on a Do Not Call list?

Or are they required to pay to find out who they are not allowed to call? Not that I disagree, if a telemarketer wants to telemarket they certainly should be required to pay a tax so-to-speak.

Simple solution to telemarketers

[Drakin020]

All I have is a cell phone, no home phone.

If I don't know the number I don't pick it up...If it's important they will leave a message.

The wrong solution

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

The DNC list is the wrong solution to the problem. If you are unhappy with the number of telemarketer calls, you should be complaining to your service provider. Make it their duty to filter the calls coming to you, using whatever technology they desire. If they fail in that regard, switch to a service provider that will make it happen for you.

We should in general avoid a "National _____ List" whenever possible. Besides the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion, there is also the needless risk of exploitation that comes with advertising your personal information. Anyone here would find it laughable if there ever was an attempt at a National Do Not Email List.

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

Right, and by your nick I assume you live in magical fairy land where there are more than one phone companies that can supply POTS? Cause you see, here in the US we happen to have one company per area that is allowed to supply land lines. Or one company and a bunch of twits who will happily bill you to act as a go-between for you and that one company.

PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number, not exactly an exploitable source of information when the whole system is number based and most telemarketers are behind auto-dialers.

Re:The wrong solution

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Cause you see, here in the US we happen to have one company per area that is allowed to supply land lines."

You've only identified the problem all the more clearly. Government restriction. Get rid of the restriction on the number of telephone companies in an area, and maybe you'll get some choice. Your argument, as it stands now, is basically "the government doesn't give me any choice, so it shouldn't give anyone else a choice either." In other words, you are accepting the status quo in defense of the status quo.

"PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number, not exactly an exploitable source of information when the whole system is number based and most telemarketers are behind auto-dialers."

That was not my primary concern, though. My main concern is with the rights violations that come with government-backed compulsion. Besides, you can't say that it's impossible for me get your personal information just from your phone number. Even better, I have an entire list of confirmed, active phone numbers for which to gather personal information! Sure, alone it's just a number, but with a little social engineering it can turn into a whole lot more.

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

You've only identified the problem all the more clearly. Government restriction. Get rid of the restriction on the number of telephone companies in an area, and maybe you'll get some choice. Your argument, as it stands now, is basically "the government doesn't give me any choice, so it shouldn't give anyone else a choice either." In other words, you are accepting the status quo in defense of the status quo.

No my argument is that for many things that are considered public services, such as phone lines, electricity, and water, there is only ONE provider in an area by either necessity or expediency.

It's all well and good for you to blow smoke about how other companies should be allowed in the game and I would be all for it, if you know... it was feasible for other companies to get into the game at this point. Who is going to sign up for telephone service that only lets you call people on your block? Who, other than the government, would force any of the companies to make their systems interoptable? Or is it your idea of a utopia when there are 12 phones all on a wall in each house because you need service with 12 different companies to be able to actually get something close to national coverage?

And as far as "OMG, we have a list of phone numbers we can use to phish with":
Dude, don't ever open those big yellow books the phone company sends out every now and then, you'll shit yourself.

Re:The wrong solution

[bonkeydcow]

You must work for the RIAA. I have heard this proposal before.

Re:The wrong solution

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"No my argument is that for many things that are considered public services, such as phone lines, electricity, and water, there is only ONE provider in an area by either necessity or expediency."

Expediency is no justification for forcibly preventing individuals/companies from doing with the property as they please and trading with willing parties as they please.

"It's all well and good for you to blow smoke about how other companies should be allowed in the game and I would be all for it, if you know... it was feasible for other companies to get into the game at this point. Who is going to sign up for telephone service that only lets you call people on your block?"

You first have to show that any new start-up would be that small. Then, when you realize you can't show that, then you'll also realize that you've concocted a straw man.

"Who, other than the government, would force any of the companies to make their systems interoptable?"

Existing companies will want their service. If demand is high enough for service providers to filter phone calls, either existing providers will start to offer that service, or new providers will spring up to offer that service and fill that demand. Existing providers will still want those services and permit them access. But if they don't, then so what? People can choose to go with the larger provider who is unwilling to provide call filtering services. Again, none of this is my main concern. What is my main concern are the rights violations that come with the government-backed compulsion that exists when any "National ____ List" is legislated into existence.

"Dude, don't ever open those big yellow books the phone company sends out every now and then, you'll shit yourself."

Except you can tell your phone company to keep your number private - ie, unpublished, but it is an entirely different story for you to enter your number into a DNC list that is given to the very people who you don't want calling you. And again, the privacy aspect is not my primary concern. For that, see this post, my last post, and my original post.

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

Expediency is no justification for forcibly preventing individuals/companies from doing with the property as they please and trading with willing parties as they please.

Ownership however, as in "you don't own the city/state/federal property you are putting your lines down on" does.

Existing companies will want their service. If demand is high enough for service providers to filter phone calls, either existing providers will start to offer that service, or new providers will spring up to offer that service and fill that demand. Existing providers will still want those services and permit them access. But if they don't, then so what? People can choose to go with the larger provider who is unwilling to provide call filtering services.

Yes, I'm sure it'll turn out all right this time around, after all last time when they did that we got Ma Bell and wasn't she wonderful ? We've been there and done that already Unicorn. The reality of life is if you let some people get big enough that they run the sandbox, suddenly they don't care if they have your business. Take off the magic glasses and read a history book.

Re:The wrong solution

[camperdave]

PS. The entire "personal" information provided by the DNC is your phone number...

Not so. Around here, the telco will also sell your name and billing address to postal marketers (junk mailers).

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

The Telco might, but the DNC list does not.

Re:The wrong solution

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Ownership however, as in "you don't own the city/state/federal property you are putting your lines down on" does."

You are only destroying your own argument even as you make it. You've once again identified the problem all the more clearly - government restriction. All property should be privately owned. Once the government takes control of land and creates enforceable rules about its use, particularly when the land permeates [i]every square mile of the country[/i], what results is a supreme manipulation of the economy. No private entities are permitted to compete with these government-run services. And the end result is obvious to all.

"Yes, I'm sure it'll turn out all right this time around, after all last time when they did that we got Ma Bell and wasn't she wonderful ? We've been there and done that already Unicorn."

You're using an example of the failure of a government-enforced monopoly in your argument for government enforcement. I do not understand what you are trying to show or how you intend to show it.

"The reality of life is if you let some people get big enough that they run the sandbox, suddenly they don't care if they have your business."

Without government-backed, forced manipulation, how is it possible for any privately-run entity to get big enough that they "run the sandbox" for any extended period of time. I can see companies merging, but as the demand for better service increases, either the company provides that service or another company comes along to fill that demand. What can stop such a competitor from existing except for force, and what entity can apply force except for the government?

"Take off the magic glasses and read a history book."

Ad hominem.

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

"Ownership however, as in "you don't own the city/state/federal property you are putting your lines down on" does."

You are only destroying your own argument even as you make it. You've once again identified the problem all the more clearly - government restriction. All property should be privately owned. Once the government takes control of land and creates enforceable rules about its use, particularly when the land permeates every square mile of the country, what results is a supreme manipulation of the economy. No private entities are permitted to compete with these government-run services. And the end result is obvious to all.

You seem to have forgotten something. If all land is privately owned, how in the world are you going to get any access to your land?

Politely ask your neighbors and hope you never get into a fight with them? How are the telephone/water/electric companies going to get access to your land? Will you be paying your neighbors and everyone between them and the company's land for access?

We've tried that too. Look up "feudal serfdom" in the history books. Do you think the first feudal lords became land owners because they were part of the government? No. They became the government because they were the land owners. Unless you have a magic wand which will provide some way for everyone to get what they need without stepping off their land, there has to be some community accepted way of sharing parts of the land to allow everyone to actually use their own land. And once you have that, you have government ownership of land.

Without government-backed, forced manipulation, how is it possible for any privately-run entity to get big enough that they "run the sandbox" for any extended period of time. I can see companies merging, but as the demand for better service increases, either the company provides that service or another company comes along to fill that demand. What can stop such a competitor from existing except for force, and what entity can apply force except for the government?

Really? So how did Microsoft take over the computer world? How did it kill Netscape, Novell, and thousands of other compeditors who were providing services?

Oh, wait. I know. They used their monopoly in one sector, gained primarly through providing "just good enough, just cheap enough" to strong arm their way into any other sector they wanted a piece of.

"Disk compression utilities? Nah, you don't need to buy our compeditors, we've just included (stole) one in our latest OS!"

"Web browsers? Nah, you don't want to install that. We've included our own in our latest OS, and as a bonus, we've made sure ours works better than theirs by deliberately preventing them from being able to do what ours can."

"Word processing? Nah, you don't need to buy that. Ours is the same cost and does only half of what theirs does. But we've gone out of our way to break their programs on our OS so you can't run them anyway!"

Capitalism is a tool. And like ANY other tool, it's useful only when you know what you are doing with it.

Re:The wrong solution

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"You seem to have forgotten something."

Before, I continue, I will make one note. The line of discussion that you have started here, and that I am now getting involved in, is not the result of my forgetting something. It is, in fact, the result of your not thinking things through. Rather than follow a line of reasoning, you are now resorting to shotgun responses, such as the one that follows - the most common shotgun response to the idea of privatization.

"If all land is privately owned, how in the world are you going to get any access to your land?"

You have a right to your property. If someone tries to stop you from accessing your property, or from leaving your property, they are violating your rights to property and life. The law enforcement will put them in their place.

"How are the telephone/water/electric companies going to get access to your land?"

Through privately owned property. If the existing roads became privately-owned, it would simply be a matter of them cutting a deal with the property owner.

"Will you be paying your neighbors and everyone between them and the company's land for access?"

No, maybe the company would, but the private owner wouldn't. Whether or not the company passes that cost on to their customers is up to them to decide and the customers to freely accept or reject.

"They became the government because they were the land owners."

And that is exactly what we have today. Those in power sell their power to the highest bidders. Feudalism is just as much a failure of the government as the corporatism we have today.

"Unless you have a magic wand which will provide some way for everyone to get what they need without stepping off their land"

Acknowledging their right to life is all that is necessary. Anyone preventing you from leaving your land to interact with society and get what you need to survive is violating that right and can be brought to justice.

"there has to be some community accepted way of sharing parts of the land to allow everyone to actually use their own land."

If members of a community come together to buy equal shares of a piece of property in order to do with it as they please, what problem is there, and how does that become government ownership?

"How did it kill Netscape, Novell, and thousands of other compeditors who were providing services?"

Lots of government-enforced bogus patents probably helped that along, however I am not an expert in that area.

"They used their monopoly in one sector, gained primarly through providing "just good enough, just cheap enough" to strong arm their way into any other sector they wanted a piece of."

How can they force anyone to accept something without physically forcing them to accept it? You're contradicting yourself.

"Disk compression utilities? Nah, you don't need to buy our compeditors, we've just included (stole) one in our latest OS!"

So accept it or don't. Nobody is forcing you to buy a computer.

"we've made sure ours works better than theirs by deliberately preventing them from being able to do what ours can."

So don't buy their OS if you don't like how it's written. If enough people agree with you, or if you can persuade them to agree with you, then the company will suffer and have to change their OS to fit your needs, or risk losing your business to some other company.

"Capitalism is a tool. And like ANY other tool, it's useful only when you know what you are doing with it."

In other words, you are saying rights are only useful when they are convenient, and then when they become inconvenient, you believe it is justifiable to ignore and violate them. You are wrong.

Re:The wrong solution

[Chyeld]

All property should be privately owned. Once the government takes control of land and creates enforceable rules about its use, particularly when the land permeates every square mile of the country, what results is a supreme manipulation of the economy.

and

You have a right to your property. If someone tries to stop you from accessing your property, or from leaving your property, they are violating your rights to property and life. The law enforcement will put them in their place.

pretty much tell me the person who isn't thinking things through isn't me.

No one (especially the government according to you) should be able to force you to do something with your land, but it's OK if the government is allowed to force you to let others cross it to get somewhere? Catch-22 anyone?

However, the rest of your response has pretty much convinced me you are just another idealist who hasn't bothered to let facts get in the way of prosthelizing the joys of libertarian capitalism.

When you can come back with actual meaningful responses to the Microsoft part of my post, please feel free to do so. Till then I'm not going to waste more time arguing with the human equivalent of a recorded message.

just an idle thought

[Sloppy]

That can be an interesting thing to keep in mind, when looking at the same principle in other contexts. If people are allowed to use other people's private property (my cellphone provider's network and my phone) without the owners' consent for purposes of political speech, then perhaps I am allowed to use flickr's server without the server's owner's consent, for my political speech.

Well, ok, not really. :-) In the phone context, we're talking about a law (you are not allowed to spam cellphones) which had to be exempted for free speech, whereas congress hasn't tried to pass a law saying you're not allowed to upload photos to servers. (If they did, then the courts would create an exemption there too.)

Shameful

[BCW2]

Congress should be ashamed that this is most highly thought of and effective law passed in the last 30 years!

Re:Shameful

[EchaniDrgn]

30 Years? What had an effect in 78?

Re:Shameful

[VisceralLogic]

Personally, the fewer laws they pass the better...

Re:Shameful

[moosesocks]

Funny? That's bloody insightful.

You should start singing now.

[Anonymous Coward]

In most states, even if you call 911 *and they answer*, there is no legal requirement for the police, fire department, etc. to respond.

They generally have a duty to society as a whole, but no duty to any specific individual or group of individuals.

I'd just like to take a moment to point out...

[Atario]

This is a typical example of how the boogie-man of "government regulation"[1] helps the people.

[1] The usual code-phrase used to mean government regulation of corporations

publish the info

[bugs2squash]

Surely it would not be hard to compel everyone who wants to make these calls to register their caller ID and a classification of their business with a national register that publishes the database on the internet for free (perhaps as a part of the process of purchasing the do-not-call-list).

that way...

1) Telcos could offer value added call-block-by-category services to residential customers.

2) Telephone equipment manufacturers could sell list-aware telephone equipment (linux based of course)

3) Asterisk could do something devilish with blacklisted calls.

4) Any telephone user can choose which calls to take and which to deny, they can even accept calls from sites that have been censured for calling abuses if they so wish.

5) Anyone not playing ball would be subject to existing penalties as if they had called someone on the D-N-C list.

6) spam callers get free publicity from Uncle Sam - should boost their business.

7) It puts the onus on the end user to ensure that they don't block an important call that they might like to hear.

Better still - put something in the caller ID message that categorizes incoming calls, but I'm not sure that the standards exist to support that.

Sadly, I'm sure it would not be long before every felon or sex offender were forced to register, so this may be the solution that ate pittsburgh.

Web Regist, requires e-mail address - inexplicably

[b4dc0d3r]

When I filled it out, they required an e-mail address for confirmation. It is supposed to be in order to confirm your identity when verifying registration or something. But when I requested confirmation for my phone number, I put in a different address, and it sent confirmation to the new address. No comparison, no BCC, no dupe - no complaints.

I e-mailed to ask them why they did this, since the e-mail address is barely a unique identifier. they asked me for my phone number so we could discuss. I said if you already have my e-mail address, you should be able to find my phone number. Otherwise asking for it is pretty useless and serves no real purpose. They said if I didn't give them my phone number to simply have a good day.

Just to piss them off, I didn't. I walked around in a huff for most of the evening.

What to do when you get a call

[houghi]

Here is what to do when you are on the list and still get a call:
http://www.junkbusters.com/script.html
You may be able to sue them.

Re:What to do when you get a call

[mrchaotica]

That script doesn't work if they block or spoof caller ID and refuse to identify themselves. What recourse do you have then? At that point, getting their phone number requires subpoenaing the phone company, which requires reporting the issue to the police, which I haven't done yet.

money making?

[krystar]

So wait...is this one of the few federal entities that actually has net income instead just spending it all? dubya should base all his initiative programs like the DNC.

How do they poll for results?

[pig_man1899]

How do they get their survery results? "Hello we noticed you are on the Do Not Call List. I am calling to ask what you think of the list... Oh I'm sorry are you eating dinner right now?"

Get a decent VoIP phone service, and a new number

[slash.duncan]

I recently switched to VoIP here, and deliberately did /not/ transfer my old phone number. The VoIP provider has an (optional) service that sends anon CID calls to an answerer that asks them to dial a random set of numbers to prove they are human. If they don't, they don't get thru.

Of course, as about all VoIP providers, they bundle CID (along with all sorts of other fancy stuff the former monopolists charge extra for) at no additional charge. When I upgraded to VoIP I took the opportunity to upgrade my home system as well, and got a "Speaking CallerID" setup. It's GREAT!! Where previously I had found CID almost useless and had therefore canceled it as it cost more, choosing instead to let everything go to answerer and I'd only answer it if I recognized the caller, now I get the announcement of who it is. Some still come up "Cell Phone ", but once I put them in the phone book it announces that name instead. After a few weeks, I was able to ignore anything generic as everyone I wanted to take calls from was already in its phone book and thus no longer generic.

I've had the system for about a year now, and in that time, have only gotten three apparent phone-spammer calls. Those three were using automated dialers and faked CIDs, aaaa, bbbb and jjjj or some such (BTW, it can be rather "interesting" to hear the phone's interpretation of say, initials), to bypass the random number dial intelligence test. As I also have a phone-zapper (what was originally advertised for $50 I picked up at the dollar store), set to play the "disconnected tri-tone" error on answer (I tell anyone I /want/ to call to expect it), all I did was pickup and at the tone the other end immediately hung up -- it was a bot, as I said. That was a couple months ago so it was 10 months with ZERO phone-spammers, the three in quick succession, and another couple months without. Thus, the speaking CID hasn't been nearly as useful as I expected it to be, but it has still been worth it, as I don't even have to look to know who's calling, now.

Since VoIP is actually competitive, prices only run about $20/mo (e911 and regulatory fees included, a bit more than that, $25-30, if paid month to month, a bit less, $15-20, if prepaid a year at a time, again including all the "extra" fees) including full US long distance coverage and all the other stuff the former monopolists want to charge an arm and a leg for, caller-id, three-way-calling, call-waiting, voice mail, etc. In fact, due to the competition, most providers add either even fancier features -- scheduled do-not-disturb, automated-wakeup-calls, the random-number-human-test thing I mentioned for no-CID calls above -- or limited international calling, sometimes including not only Canada but much of Western Europe in the same unlimited calling $20-ish/mo fee.

Sure I have the occasional echo or dropout, but unlike the former monopolists or the cableco's phone offering, these guys actually know how to treat a customer, and because one can now shop nationwide or even worldwide for providers, they don't forget it either, or their customers today simply end up someone else's customers tomorrow! There's no way I'd go back!

(FWIW, unlike Internet, I consider phone service including 911 service a luxury, and I keep e911 service altho it's not quite as direct now, so dropping the wired provider wasn't a problem. I've never had a cellphone as I've simply never been able to cost-justify the additional cost given my usage. Some may prefer keeping minimal measured-call service or the like, if they are uncomfortable losing the security of conventional 911 service.)

I'm not going to say who my provider is as this isn't about selling them. There's several providers out there with similar offerings. Just do your research. FWIW, I started with the commercial VoIP provider listing at Wikipedia tho I ended up with someone not listed there. If you REALLY want to know who it is, post a request and I'll say, but you really SHOULD do at least some o

My Bad Review for the DNC List

[Stormy Dragon]

Before the DNC list was even established, I was on the Direct Marketing Association's do not call list. And it worked great; no one ever bothered me. Then the DNC law was passed and DMA terminate their list and I signed up for the new federal one.

Suddenly I started getting all kinds of calls. From charities, pollsters, and ESPECIALLY political groups -- all of whom are exempt from the law. It got so annoying that when it came time to renew my DNC registration, I decided to let my name fall off.

And since then the calls have mostly stopped. That's right, being on the DNC list actually increased the number of annoying calls I got. All this law does is spend taxpayer dollars to build a huge database of phone numbers that political groups can use for fundraising purposes.

Re:My Bad Review for the DNC List

[truesaer]

Names don't "fall off" the DNC list. That was the original plan but the FCC decided that registrations would never expire when the first deadline to re-register approached. So you remain on the list.

Didn't work for me...

[internetcommie]

After a couple years of being slow, rude and outright obstructive when telemarketers called me, I was down to about 3 calls a week. Not too bad, but I thought I could do better and signed up for the DNC.
Big mistake! Afterwards every charity, pollster and politician started calling me at least once a day each. In the end I got rid of the landline because I had the phone unplugged most the time anyway.
For me, that was what it took to be able to eat dinner in peace and quiet.

This is the sad part

[zoomshorts]

It is my phone equipment that I pay for. If for instance, I could charge
people to use my equipment and leased line for THEM using my phone to
do their business on, then I would be happy. I would gladly accept a
call for 50 dollars in MY pocket.

Sadly, politicians and charities were exempted. They are both businesses.

I want a law passed to be a true do-not-call list with NO exemptions on
business use.

I would allow calls with accurate weather alerts , "a tornado was spotted
at 5th and Main traveling North East at 15 miles per hour. Please take shelter if
you are in this vicinity" type of call. Thunderstorms do not count as severe
weather.

ALL other calls from people I do not know , should cost them money, payable to ME.

Piss on politicians who think they can have their 'people' call me on their behalf.
I simply note the assholes from the party that calls me and refuse to vote for them.
Sadly, the Dems and Reps get no votes from me, I bet they wonder why ...

Do you think they will learn? Naw.

Re:coondoggie?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can I report people that use the recorded messages? I've got no problem listening to those things if I can cost them money.

This is wonderful!

[SleptThroughClass]

This is wonderful news! I'll have to call them to congratulate them!

You put yourself on a federal spam list

[anarking]

The DNC list is simply a federally sanctioned list to be sold. A fee to access the list, under the pretense that these marketers will use it to know who NOT to call when in fact they are using the list as just another list of people TO call, sounds a lot like everyone else who sells spam lists. The gov't is loving the money and "subscribers" are loving getting the telemarketers anyway. Seriously, sign up for the DNC list and watch as you get MORE telemarketers calling you. Coincidence? I think not.

No actual enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

I occasionally get telemarketing calls on my DNC line. It's probably 2 per month. My favorite was the guy who, when I asked, "What is the name of the company you work for?" replied, "None of your FUCKING business!" and hung up.

I've complained on the DNC website set up by the government but they say right there on the website they won't do anything about it. I'd pay another dollar in taxes per year to institute vicious retaliation against any company violating the DNC.

Plus I want to be able to opt to block *all* telemarketing calls including charities, political messages, and companies with whom I have previously done business. My time, you see, is none of their FUCKING business.

Horseshit

[macdaddy]

What a load of horseshit. The DNC list didn't even make a dent in the number of marketing calls that I get. If anything the load has increased many fold since its implementation. I get more calls than ever. Frankly I think the DNC list is being used like unsubscribe forms are for spammers. Every single sales calls I get I always tell the person that they called a number on the DNS, ask for their company name, physical address of the company, and their employee ID information. About 9 out of 10 times they hang up on me at that point. The DNC is feel-good worthless political horseshit. It's the typical kind of crap that comes out of Washington. The best answer to sales calls is an answering and caller-ID. Don't recognize the # then don't answer the phone. Let it go to VM and listen to it then. Other than that simply hang up on them. Forget about being rude. They're less than honest by calling a # that's on the DNC. The need to get a real job and leave us the hell alone. Hang up on them. Don't argue. Just hang up.

Re:Horseshit

[macdaddy]

Please ignore my typos. Read what I thought, not what I wrote. Thanks

Stopped working for me

[cretog8]

The DNC list worked wonderfully for me for a bit more than a year. Now, I average about two spam calls per day. I can try to complain, but first I have to get the spammers to identify themselves, which for some reason they aren't eager to do.

When I sent an email to the feds (using the link at the site) asking them what to do when I couldn't get the phone # or company name, it took them a month to respond with a form email which didn't say anything about my question.

No glowing review here.

It does not work

[wireloose]

I don't care what anyone says. I registered my home phone as soon as the registry became available. In the many years since, I've continued to get call after call. Sales, charity, computer, all unsolicited.

Basically I don't answer calls anymore because I can't get caller ID where I live. (Lucky to get cable broadband.) I have an answering machine. Everybody that knows me knows to call and leave a message, or to call and ring once and then redial and I'll pick up.

Re:Get a decent VoIP phone service, and a new numb

[Anonymous Coward]

God, the lengths some people go to, just to save the few seconds a day it takes to answer a call and say, "hey, not interested." *click*

But no, some people would rather spend ten times as much time "solving a problem" the hard way, then just ignoring it.