Congress May Permit Robot Calls To Cell Phones

TCPALaw writes "While many hoaxes have circulated in the past about cell phone numbers being opened up to telemarketers, it now may actually happen. A bill, HR 3035 (PDF), has been introduced in Congress, that would create numerous exceptions to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which banned autodialed and prerecorded robot calls to cell phone numbers. If passed, HR 3035 would permit a wide range of autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones that are currently prohibited, and would preempt practically all state laws providing similar protections. This is being applauded by debt collectors and banks (PDF) ... as if the bailouts weren't enough, now they get to make you pay for their calls to you."

Comments

Pay to call, not to recieve.

[Hatta]

This is why cell phones should be pay to call. Not pay to receive. You have no control over who calls you, therefore it makes no sense to agree to pay for incoming calls. Any plan without free incoming calls is a non-starter for me.

Re:Pay to call, not to recieve.

[Hatta]

Yes it costs the same in physical resources. But it doesn't necessarily benefit both parties. The caller is the one who wants to initiate contact, so he should pay. The recipient may want the call, they may not want the call, or they may not care at all. But we know for certain the caller wants the call to go through. Since every phonecall has a caller and a recipient, every phonecall gets paid for by someone who wants that phone call.

To put this another way, if I take a shit on your lawn, it takes the same resources to clean it up whether I pay for it, or you pay for it. Is it fair for me to ask you to pay half those costs?

Re:Simple.

[kheldan]

I'm not quite that paranoid, but I don't answer my phone for numbers I don't recognize, and robocalls usually don't leave voicemail, so if I see an unrecognized number and there's no voicemail, I don't bother over who (or what) it was.

Am I the only person here thinking that at least part of the reason behind this is so that the GOP and/or the DNC can legally get away with robocalling voters?

Re:Incentive -- no lobbying needed on this one.

[Thud457]

This is a public service announcement reminding all registered Democrats not to forget election day, November 3rd.

Google Voice

[Captain_Loser]

I have found the the "beta" spam feature of google voice does a good job of filtering out crap calls. Also, every cell phone that I have used for the past 10 years has had caller ID. I just don't answer calls that I don't recognize. If it's important, they'll leave a voicemail.

Re:You have to pay?

[subreality]

Yep. When we say the cell market is terrible in the US, we're not kidding. We also pay for incoming texts. You can nail people for $0.20 a pop by text bombing them. The major carriers use incompatible technologies, so it's a major hassle to take your business elsewhere... not that any of them offer a better deal anyway.

Re:Simple.

[kmankmankman2001]

Am I the only person here thinking that at least part of the reason behind this is so that the GOP and/or the DNC can legally get away with robocalling voters?

Perhaps - as many of us are aware that existing law already exempts political calls anyway. The proposed bill wouldn't grant them any more access than they already have. There are MANY reasons to oppose this bill and I suggest that people should contact their congressman/woman to voice their concerns - but not for the reason you raise here.