Slashdot Mirror
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."
Isn't it amazing what a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions will do?
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Debt collectors and banks? They shouldn't be robocalling. Those situations are where they have a pre-existing relationship with the person being called, and aren't cold-calling anybody.
Robocalls are the telephone equivalent of spam. Why is it I can put a "No solicitors" sign on my door, but my phone must be subject to cold-calling from telemarketers, solicitations for "charities" and political groups, and any scammer who can operate a telephone? And they want to make it easier to bother lots of people at a time by allowing robocalling?
If anything, every telemarketing call should have to be hand-dialed, etc., no computer assistance. Think of the jobs that would be created.... Do it for the economy.
I wonder how soon the phone companies will work out a deal to let telemarketers call the phone customers, for a fee - because we know how much they care about the customers.
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
This is a public service announcement reminding all registered Democrats not to forget election day, November 3rd.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Prerecorded, I don't know. But if a debt collector calls you with an autodialer, you can take them to small claims court for $500, as it's illegal. If you can demonstrate that they willfully ignored the law, it's $1500.
Although the idea behind the *Telephone Consumer Protection Act*, as it is currently, is reasonable, in practice, it does little good. I started to get robo-calls some time ago on my land line from 'Tax Resolution Services'. The number has been on the national do not call register for ages. J. K. Harris and Company were particularly aggressive. Although I told them to put me on their do not call list, asked for a written copy of their do not call policy and did all the right things, they did not stop. Fortunately, I documented it all. Eventually, I took them to Small Claims Court, under the right to private action provision of the *Telephone Consumer Protection Act*. I won the case, along with $1,000 damages, court costs and legal interest. That was several months ago. To date, I have not received a penny. They do not respond to e-mails, certified letters, or telephone calls. I cannot go after their assets, as they seem to rent everything and own nothing. It turns out their head of legal services is only a paralegal, not a lawyer, so I cannot even pursue her for failing to live up to the professional standards of South Carolina Bar Association. So, scumbag telemarketers already have ways of getting around the law. Making life even easier for them would thus be a very bad idea.
In many places you don't pay for incoming calls at all. The caller pays a higher rate for calling a cell phone instead. Of course that means you can't put cell phones and land line phones in the same area code prefix blocks since there has to be some way to tell which is which when making a call.
This is true throughout Europe. Unfortunately the higher rate for calling a cell phone is often 1-2 _orders_of_magnitude_ higher if you're calling from the states on a calling card. Before Skype I used to talk to my girlfriend in Europe for 1 cent a minute if she found a landline or 20-50 cents a minute if I had to call her cell. At ~3000 minutes a month and grad student incomes it meant we had to put a lot of effort into finding reliable pay phones.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
I once worked for a debt collection agency when I was a lot younger, and there were some pretty rigid rules that had to be followed about calling people with regards to debt. These rules were set up by a central governing authority that determined accepted business rules and practices (I don't recall the name of the authority off hand). Among the rules that had to be followed, I remember that collectors were *NOT* allowed to call people multiple times in one day unless they had not reached anyone the first time, or if they had been advised to call back later. Also, hours of attempted telephone contact are restricted to between the hours of 7AM and 9PM local time for the person being called. Further, if the person that a collector reaches claims to be the owner of the phone number that the collector was trying to reach, and affirms that the person the collector is trying to reach cannot be reached at that phone number, then the collector *MUST NOT* call that number again to try to reach the debtor, and other methods of contact must be utilized. Finally, C&D notices, issued in writing, must be adhered to. If the collection agency does not heed these guidelines (the aforementioned ones are just a handful... there are actually about 10 or 12 or them), then the person answering the phone can report the collection company to the authorities, and the collection agency will face a very stiff fine.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
No, you are not. In fact, I think that's the biggest reason behind this bill. The new generation doesn't have land lines, so in order to annoy the piss out of potential votes, they need to be able to call cell phones.
There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
Of course they won't pay the bill. But, I will send it, write it off as noncollectable, then file a 1099 with the IRS of forgiven debt. (nothing better than being pedantic with the IRS). I assume one of these days it'll get me audited, but until then I will continue to have fun (much like the guy who is suing spammers for violations of the CAN-SPAM act).
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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.
-=You might be a geek if your computer is worth more than your car=-
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?
You're one of the few people who won't make it a partisan issue.
I don't answer numbers I don't know - since most of us don't get unlimited calling, I think any cold-calling absolutely sucks and ought to be banned, or callers ought to be made to pay credit to your phone account (whether it's mobile or not). I don't know if it's still this way, but in Brazil the caller paid cellphone charges for calling a mobile number. Suddenly that seems like a great idea.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
they are already exempt from the restriction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall
Robocalls are made by all political parties in the United States, including but not limited to both the Republican and Democratic parties as well as unaffiliated campaigns, 527 organizations, unions, and individual citizens. Political robocalls are exempt from the United States National Do Not Call Registry. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit telemarketers from using automated dialers to call cell phone numbers. However, political groups are excluded from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) definition of telemarketer, thus robocalls from or on behalf of political organizations are still permitted on the federal level.[1]
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
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.
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
"since it isn't a problem for me I am not concerned."
Sigh.
Call up your carrier and have them disable SMS. If they refuse or can't do it (they can) then call them up every time you receive a SMS and tell them to remove it from your bill.
AT&T has effectively disabled my ability to receive SMS messages (I refuse to pay for GSM SMS when it's sent with every fucking packet anyway) and they have also set me up with free SMS anyway because one phone number which keeps sending me texts was getting through anyway (they don't know why).
Is it an inconvenience? Sure. I had to call 8x to get them to fix it properly. But do they need to learn not to charge people for SMS when it's effectively free? Yes.
Google Voice makes it easy to change carriers, and with a smartphone, incoming and outgoing text messages are fre, if you use their app. Also, they filter out junk calls.
My only worry is, what happens if Google Voice goes away?
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And the simple solution to this: don't identify yourself to anyone unless you've obtained the purpose of their call. Seriously, why give out information that they may not already have?
It's not being courteous, it's being naive - at least in todays' society.
---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
I had a collection agency robocall my landline for about 3 months calling at all hours about 3 times a day. It left a message to call an 800 number and ask for Bob. I ignored it as a sales call. If I picked up the phone, there was NEVER a person on the line. It was a robo call to deliver a message.
A Google search showed the 800 number was a collection agency. Bob was fictitious to cue the agency it was a delinquent caller. This collection agency was hammering an old number that became my new landline.
I figured they pay the bill for calls to 800 numbers so I recorded a message and started calling the 800 number with the message "Your autodialer is running amook on my landline. Please call me to let me know when you have this fixed. Ask for Bob" When I got a call, I called back late at night (I work nights) and left them the message. I finally got a real person to call. A short exchange let them know the number was a new phone. I also gave them a real hard time as there was no way for anyone to stop the robo calls if they did not speak English.
If it happens again, I have a Russian co worker I'll have call them and only speak Russian except for "Ask for Bob"
Robo dialing is one thing. Robo calls with nobody on the line should be 100% outlawed, even for collections.
The truth shall set you free!
Those collection agency calls where they call you and tell you to call a number and ask for $NAME are a scam. In my case, they'd call wanting to talk about a "check I had written". They were robocalling me for months, probably close to a year before I finally disconnected that land line (for other unrelated reasons, though it was nice to be free of those calls finally)
Turns out this was a fraudster company that would bully people into thinking they had an unpaid debt and to pay the "debt" off. Once you started talking to them they'd even threaten you with legal action if you didn't pay; legal action that would never come, of course, since the whole thing was fraudulent.
I'm not sure if it's still going on. Remember, real debt collectors call you directly (no robocalls), address you by name and can specify precisely what you owe and to whom.
The DNC wants to raise taxes to pay the price for continued society. It is the RNC who refuse to pay for the government they enact and it has been for 30 years.
Given two choices, Tax and Spend or Debt and Spend, guess which one is more sustainable? The alternative Pillage and Run promoted by the tea party is not a viable alternative.
The Democratic congress critters have been doing the same thing. Prior to the 2010 elections, one of our House reps (also a Dem at that time) had automated messages hitting me every evening.
I suspect it's not "Republican turds," but rather the consequence of political turds. Lots of reps do it--it's just that we complain less when it's someone with whom we agree.
He who has no
The cost of waging war is is far less than our deficit spending. The entire cost of our military including the wars, all research, development and readiness is about half of our deficit spending.
Bringing the troops home is not enough. Taxes have to be raised, period. There is no alternative that doesn't leave America a shattered shallow mockery of a failed state.