Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ and 4 States Want $24 Billion In Fines From Dish Network For Telemarketing (arstechnica.com)

Posted by timothy on from the prince-albert-a-running-refrigerator-and-thou dept.

walterbyrd writes: The DOJ as well as Ohio, Illinois, California, and North Carolina say that Dish disregarded federal laws on call etiquette. US lawyers are asking for $900 million in civil penalties, and the four states are asking for $23.5 billion in fines, according to the Denver Post. 'Laws against phoning people on do-not-call lists and using recorded messages allow penalties of up to $16,000 per violation,' the Post added.

117 comments

  1. First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Although I recognize that telemarketing can be annoying, it's a form of speech. Arguably it's no different than junk mail, which there's no effort to ban. Online ads, which actually can be harmful by inserting malware, are not banned. I don't see why telemarketing is worse than those. There are good reasons why certain types of speech like slander and violent threats are illegal. However, telemarketing doesn't have the harmful impacts of those types of speech. This is a first amendment issue, and the government shouldn't be able to enforce bans on telemarketing. If a particular form of advertising is particularly obnoxious, the market can handle it if customers just stop doing business with that company. Either they will adjust their business model as the telemarketing wastes money or takes business away from them, or they will go out of business. Consumers already have that power, so they don't need the government to infringe upon first amendment rights.

    1. Re:First amendment by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first amendment right is a right to speak. Its not a right to force others to listen.

      No first amendment rights are being violated here. There is a do not call list that people opt into that means "This person does not wish to recieve your phone calls". If you think that allowing people to be forced into hearing others speech is OK, then fine, but lets not pretend that position is about defending rights.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:First amendment by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The First Amendment guarantees a voice, but does not guarantee a platform. The fines for ignoring the DNC list are not for speaking; they are for violating the DNC list.

    3. Re:First amendment by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The first amendment does not cover their use of my resources (my phone line) to convey their speech. They tie up my resources to do their speech. As soon as this is not the case, we can talk about their freedom of speech.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re: First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The republicans do that because that is how they be.

    5. Re:First amendment by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Although I recognize that telemarketing can be annoying, it's a form of speech."

      Telemarketing is speech in the same way that mugging is a display of affection.

    6. Re: First amendment by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "The republicans do that because that is how they be."

      But because we're Republicans, we can shoot any telemarketers we catch.

    7. Re:First amendment by Nastee · · Score: 2

      You totally sound like a schill for telemarketers.

    8. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although I recognize that telemarketing can be annoying, it's a form of speech.

      True. The form is commercial.

      Arguably it's no different than junk mail, which there's no effort to ban.

      Except the effort to ban Junk mail.

      Online ads, which actually can be harmful by inserting malware, are not banned.

      C'mon, you have to be aware of Ad Blocking software, right?

      I don't see why telemarketing is worse than those.

      That's ok, you don't have to see it. It can be heard. And it is. People call and complain about it all the time.

      There are good reasons why certain types of speech like slander and violent threats are illegal. However, telemarketing doesn't have the harmful impacts of those types of speech.

      That's why it has different regulations, though I should point out that "slander" and "violent threats" are themselves subject to a wide grade of analysis and review, as well as differences in handling.

      This is a first amendment issue, and the government shouldn't be able to enforce bans on telemarketing. If a particular form of advertising is particularly obnoxious, the market can handle it if customers just stop doing business with that company.

      Unfortunately, you're wrong on this. Especially since most of the calls I get are not with an identifiable company, but some random fly-by-night operation.

      Either they will adjust their business model as the telemarketing wastes money or takes business away from them, or they will go out of business. Consumers already have that power, so they don't need the government to infringe upon first amendment rights.

      I need the government to protect my safety and security, to ensure my peace of mind.

      Or stop interring with me as I seek to make sure certain people pay the consequences of their actions.

    9. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first amendment right is a right to speak. Its not a right to force others to listen.

      This is not how the SCOTUS has interpreted it.

      You might like to believe that the Republicans respect the letter of the constitution but the fact is that all their SCOTUS nominees side with the pro big business republican agenda.

    10. Re:First amendment by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      First Amendment pre-dates telephones. If a salesman wants to stand on the public right-of-way and talk about his wares, that is his right under the First Amendment. The First Amendment did not give salesmen the right to make a device in my pants pocket vibrate at all hours of the day and night, masquerading as someone I might want to talk to and interrupting my private time.

    11. Re:First amendment by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Ok give me your phone number and I will call you repeatedly between 2 and 5 am to offer to sell you things of dubious value. After all, it's just speech and it's my right.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, the telemarketers calling are synthesized voices in which case they have no damn rights since it's a machine calling.

    13. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, you're anti-republican - We get it, but you're just making shit up now.

    14. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either they will adjust their business model as the telemarketing wastes money or takes business away from them, or they will go out of business.

      Telemarketers only need a tiny response rate to be profitable, so taking your business elsewhere won't work. Besides, if I've put my name/number/email on a 'do not call' list, then contacting me in spite of my expressed wishes pretty much constitutes an agression.

    15. Re:First amendment by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Among other things, a newspaper heaved into your driveway cannot be punished as garbage. The front of your house is your open, public approach, and it's been to the Supreme Court, and speech wins every time. They can come up and knock, too.

      Now if you put a fence around your yard and no tresspassing signs, that's different. A no call list might be similar to a no tresspassing sign.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:First amendment by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Actually, that's a kind of press, the mechanical means of mass producing and distributing speech, specifically protected in the First Amendment alongside Speech itself. Modern courts have added "The Press"-qua-job-description, but the real reason is kings would backdoor censor by outlawing or controlling printing presses.

      Indeed, there is a push on to do away with "The Press" job description, and being a "member" of "The Press" is synonymous with any citizen doing anything press-like, like picking up a cell phone camera or posting on Facebook. There is no special subset of citizens permitted greater freedom of speech than others.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:First amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The First Amendment guarantees a voice, but does not guarantee a platform. The fines for ignoring the Do Not Talk list are not for speaking; they are for violating the Do Not Talk list.

      All you did was attempt to obfuscate your censorship with bureaucracy. What an awful example.

  2. Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can dish even afford 24B? Something tells me they're going up for sale soon. captcha: abruptly -- seriously slashdot, do you generate these based off our comments?

    1. Re:Lots of money by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      That's fine, too. One less annoyance in the world is already a good outcome.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One wishes that the fines would completely destroy Dish Network. Let that be a warning to telemarketers that ignore the do not call list. There are many.

    3. Re:Lots of money by TheReaperD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We so need a corporate death penalty. This isn't quite the case for it to be used but, it should certainly exist. Also, if the corporation is sentenced to death, all of the C-level executives should have an automatic prison sentence that can be enhanced for their crimes.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    4. Re:Lots of money by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I put a corporate death penalty up on the whitehouse.gov petitions a couple years ago. Got something like 3 signatures. It was even less popular than the one where I suggested that members of Congress should be required to use VA hospitals until the problems with VA hospitals are solved. A couple veterans I know were pretty gung-ho for that one.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    5. Re:Lots of money by eth1 · · Score: 1

      We so need a corporate death penalty. This isn't quite the case for it to be used but, it should certainly exist. Also, if the corporation is sentenced to death, all of the C-level executives should have an automatic prison sentence that can be enhanced for their crimes.

      In theory, I support the idea, but the problem is that in practice, you could end up putting 100,000 people out of a job. They would have absolutely no influence on how the company is run, and may not be in a position to rock the boat anyway, since they have to feed their families, too.

      Perhaps it could work something like this: Throw the execs in jail, then confiscate all stock, and re-allocate it evenly among the remaining employees. As the sole remaining shareholders, it would be up to them to find good leadership and put things right if they want to keep their jobs. That could also be a hell of an incentive to blow the whistle.

    6. Re:Lots of money by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      " Throw the execs in jail, then confiscate all stock, and re-allocate it evenly among the remaining employees. As the sole remaining shareholders, it would be up to them to find good leadership and put things right if they want to keep their jobs. " I absolutely LOVE your theoretical implementation. I too have been harping about some type of "corporate death penalty" too...if corps are people, why is it OK for them to be basically immortal? With the current system, the more voracious, vicious, and predatory a corp is the longer it lives. This is the opposite of how our social, overly-emphatic human race has evolved were cooperation has been the key to our rise. We label people who act like highly successful corps as psychopaths and lock them up. Yet a large portion of the US population actually cheers on the blood sports and worships people like Gordon Gekko. We owe it to ourselves, our future generations, and society as a whole to find a "middle path" that both allows free enterprise to flourish yet actually punishes the corporate psychopaths.

    7. Re:Lots of money by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Well, Dish is now owned by AT&T. Theoretically they COULD afford it, yet AT&T most certainly has many sub-clauses in their buyout terms that say anything done before the merger is not their issue. Since it's already been approved by the SEC, and AT&T is the definition of a heartless corp, I'm sure they are completely indemnify against anything done pre-merger. Personally I think that shouldn't be allowed; but corps have far different rules than humans.

    8. Re:Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giving the stocks to the employees would incentivise faking documents, etc, to set up the bosses of your company and make yourself rich. Probably not a good idea.

    9. Re:Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says the guy who obviously doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about..........

      AT&T purchased DirecTV. But that's okay. Post something without even doing a quick check.. You moron

    10. Re:Lots of money by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      We need to hold the board of directors of the corporation legally responsible for corporate crime. Fining the company for killing people is a cost of business, putting the CEO in jail is a deterent.

    11. Re:Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if the corporation is sentenced to death ...

      That is, in effect, punishing all the shareholders for something they don't know about and so, don't have any legal liability for. What about the customers who need their warranties honoured and support services maintained? While the lack of political will is the biggest block, mostly because the US admires and encourages unabashed greed and wealth, there are real technical issues to executing a corporate citizen.

      The big issue is the agency problem: Not that customers and shareholders can't "pierce the corporate veil" but that bad agents (employees) use the will and wealth of their customers and shareholders for criminal or destructive (to the community) acts. Until there is political will to hold managerial employees to a higher standard, nothing will change.

      Look at the GFC. AIG created 'money for nothing' policies that had no real purpose other than causing their own bankruptcy: They weren't investigated. Goldman-Sachs committed outright fraud: They were given immunity. Standard & Poor, plus Moodys lied on the value of many securities: They claimed their statements were non-binding promises despite demanding money for said promises. That makes it a commercial transaction and automatically involves a duty of care to the customer, which they revoked and the government allowed them to ignore the law. (The US government actually does this a lot, which is why employees and customers are regularly screwed in the USA.)

    12. Re:Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      corporate death penalty? sure. but in a market with only two players.. and where the number of players is fixed by government actions or licensing or regulations... it's all too tempting for one to try to take out the other....

      in THIS case, however.. dish isn't the one primarily at fault.. it's the firms they hire to do the telemarketing.... and i'm all for shutting down every fucking one of *those*

    13. Re:Lots of money by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It just wouldn't do anything. Corporations are "born" easier than humans, and their "death" is meaningless. If you slaughter CorporationA, you may rest assured that a nanosecond CorporationANowNewAndImproved emerges that inherits everything from CorporationA, including staff and production means.

      What you might lose is the name. Which may well be a good thing for said corporation since they just did something that warrants being shot.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Lots of money by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Why would the remaining employees be sole remaining shareholders or am I reading this wrong? Lots of other people and companies can own shares in a company. When a company is starting up and gets outside investors they normally trade a fairly large amount of equity for the injection of money. Public companies can have shares owned by millions of people (especially when a nationalized company such as Air Canada or the British post office first go public and people want to own a part of if). Pension funds and mutual funds own massive amounts of shares in many companies.

    15. Re:Lots of money by KGIII · · Score: 1

      ;-)

      I have, in my control, multiple corporations for a variety of reasons. They can come with a whole host of benefits and can be used for all sorts of good things. I strongly urge most everyone to look into the possible benefits - you can even do some interesting tax structuring with one if you're interested in going that route. Basically, you hire yourself to go to work at your regular job and then your car becomes an asset that has depreciation, fuel costs become business expenses, and things of that nature - that's one such option that folks can use, legally, to reduce their tax burden.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Lots of money by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      I put a corporate death penalty up on the whitehouse.gov petitions a couple years ago. Got something like 3 signatures. It was even less popular than the one where I suggested that members of Congress should be required to use VA hospitals until the problems with VA hospitals are solved. A couple veterans I know were pretty gung-ho for that one.

      Did you get the word out? Certainly this is the first I've heard of either one.

      Figure out how to get it to go viral on FB and you'll get the signatures.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    17. Re:Lots of money by jandersen · · Score: 1

      We so need a corporate death penalty

      - and there should be a mechanism for converting it to community service. Cruel and demeaning community service, for about 4 - 5 billion years.

    18. Re: Lots of money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may be legal, but you're still an asshole for not paying fair taxes.

      You shouldn't be able to write off going to work, just what is necessary for the job requirements if if requires travel. .

    19. Re: Lots of money by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that I do that - I do not, but I still do write down business expenses, as I own a business still. In fact, I own in part, or in whole, lots of businesses now. See, I'm retired. However, YOU can do that - and it is perfectly legal, depending on how you structure it and your jurisdiction. Businesses are taxed only on profit, why should your taxes be any different? Your not an asshole for reducing your tax burden, tax avoidance is legal and ethical. Tax evasion is immoral and unethical. The two are vastly different and, yes, it's possible to abuse the former. Doing so is usually skirting a law or two. However, you're given the tools to incorporate, there are many benefits to doing so, and it might be in your best interests to look into such.

      I reduce my tax burden, not as much as I suppose I could, by donating to charitable causes. I also reduce my tax burden by making long-term investments instead of short term investments. It's better for the economy to make long-term investments so those are taxed at what's known as capital gains rates while shorter stuff is actually taxed at income tax levels. Contrary to popular opinion, those day traders and HFT folks are paying income tax rates, not capital gains. It was one of the more glaring (and amusing) erroneous complaints by the OWS crowd. "We don't understand it but we don't like it!" They had some good, and legitimate, complaints but a muddied message doesn't convey that very well.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. Too Bad by Pikoro · · Score: 0

    The only people who would see a dime of this aren't affected by it. It's lawyers all the way down.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    1. Re:Too Bad by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you want something, file a civil suit.

    2. Re:Too Bad by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lawyers can get a cut of lawsuits. These $$ are fines. Fines go directly to the government.

      But you're right that the people who were most affected won't see a penny.

    3. Re: Too Bad by Entrope · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a serious collective action problem here. Between caller ID spoofing, robo-calling, callers refusing to identify their company or who they are calling on behalf of, and outright fraud, it is all but impossible to establish a TCPA violator's identity well enough to stand up in court, and then it is practically impossible to enforce any judgment. The time and effort it takes to win money is more costly for most people than what they could collect in a civil case.

    4. Re: Too Bad by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isnt impossible. If someone wanted to they could identify these companies. The phone companies don't want to bother though. They have the technology though.

    5. Re: Too Bad by Entrope · · Score: 1

      Do the signaling protocols that telcos use accurately carry source information, even when VoIP providers help spoofing? Why won't my caller phone show that info? I didn't say identifying the caller was impossible, just that it is inordinately difficult and often not worth the hassle. It also tends to raise one's blood pressure.

    6. Re: Too Bad by Amouth · · Score: 1

      What your looking for is ANI (Automatic Number Identification).

      with newer VoIP exchanges it's easier to spoof, but you wouldn't be able to from a legit phone company connection.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    7. Re: Too Bad by swb · · Score: 1

      "Not worth the hassle" is the part that matters. Because for them it's all hassle and no reward.

      If the Feds were to open a RICO case against a telemarketer and choose to make the telephony providers who enable them part of the conspiracy and part of the 20 years in prison, $100,000 per count prosecution then you bet your sweet ass they'd be coming up with circuit traces and source information, rapidamente.

      I would imagine just considering a RICO case and telling a telco that they were considering including them as a target unless they were willing to provide this information that's a "hassle" would get action, too.

      The "hassle" part just means the effort isn't worth the end product. But if the end product is, say, not spending the next 20 years in Lewisburg Penitentiary, then maybe the hassle drops off.

      But you have to ask yourself why these kinds of prosecutions haven't ever been brought against spammers or fraudulent telemarketers. If legitimate businesses would quit providing hosting products, financial services, etc to these scam businesses they would be a lot harder to operate and there would be fewer of them, too.

    8. Re: Too Bad by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.

    9. Re:Too Bad by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Fines shouldn't go to the government. That's what causes things like corrupt cities setting up speed traps when they have a budget shortfall.

      Fines for violations against the public should go into a government fund. And every year when every taxpayer files their taxes, they get a proportional share out of that fund; either as a tax credit or a refund. That way the money goes back directly to the public.

    10. Re: Too Bad by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Here's a 71 page reference called "Caller ID (CID) Algorithm User’s Guide". The service providing names with numbers is technically separate, called CNAME. Wikipedia has some basic info. But seeing as Caller ID was developed in 1984, far before most tech we're currently using and made to work with basic switching systems (in the teleco sense, not modern networking sense), it's quite primitive and easily spoofed. Anyone with an old modem can make scripts to spoof it.

    11. Re: Too Bad by Entrope · · Score: 1

      I think what we need is liability to the callee that aligns incentives in useful ways. For example, require caller ID to be accurate, and if the caller would be liable for $X in damages, make their telco liable for $X/2 in damages, and the caller's telco liable for $X/4 in damages, with a reasonably streamlined adjudication process. If Verizon owed me $125 for each ID-spoofed call I got in a month, they'd work pretty hard to make it reliable enough to shift that liability.

    12. Re: Too Bad by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      not spending the next 20 years in Lewisburg Penitentiary With the people who made the actual calls.

      That should get results!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    13. Re: Too Bad by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      reasonably streamlined adjudication process

      No such animal, either engage a lawyer who will charge you $400 to try to win $500, or take a day off from work to go press the case yourself.

      I've been dealing with a serial harasser who claims to be Google, but is damnably hard to identify - even though they purport to want my business... it's not worth the hassle of chasing down their identity to try to possibly sue them in a local court to win a judgement that is then impractical to collect.

    14. Re: Too Bad by Entrope · · Score: 2

      For that bit, I was thinking basically an administrative law judge or a panel at the FCC, where their main job is to adjudicate cases like this, and so they can have streamlined accesses to relevant databases -- for example, I say "I got unsolicited calls at 9:15 on day A, 10:43 on day B", and so forth, and they can confirm with my telco that those calls were made, and get details about the callers that my carrier might not give me. If those details sustain my claim of TCPA violations, this judge or panel could award damages.

    15. Re: Too Bad by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Seems optimistic, would be nice, but I've never known the legal system to try that hard to help people.

    16. Re: Too Bad by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.

      Like calling from out of the country maybe - where such laws don't apply or cannot be easily enforced.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    17. Re: Too Bad by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Some of this is cat and mouse... whatever system is used to identify them is circumvented, when that circumvention no longer works a new one is devised. If a company gets nailed badly enough, they declare bankruptcy and continue on in another corporation using slightly improved evasion methods.

      Like calling from out of the country maybe - where such laws don't apply or cannot be easily enforced.

      Yeah, the ultimate evasion - it does take quite a bit of initial investment to set up an international scam, or at least pre-existing contacts in the non-extradition country willing to help. Thankfully, most telemarketing harassers don't have that much initiative or resources.

  4. Steals your time by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The difference is that telemarketing steals your time in a way you can't reallocate. It's a much more significant intrusion than junk mail, and much more inconsiderate. And it is used much more frequently by very disreputable companies who hide caller IDs, refuse to give you real addresses, pretend to have preexisting relationships with you, etc...

    Basically the sheer quantity of fraud combined with the much greater intrusion make it an appropriate area for regulation. The phone companies should be preventing it but don't. So long as the phone companies won't, governments should.

    1. Re:Steals your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been on both sides of the coin, generally there are three kinds of telemarketing
      a) Telemarketing you have a business relationship , eg your bank, your tv provider. These may be annoying, but you have a business relationship with them, and they are abusing it if they do anything more than call you to remind you to pay your bill. The minute they try to sell you something it crosses over to the next one...
      b) Telemarketing that you have opted-in by not opting out. Or in other words when you signed up for a service maybe you forgot to tick a "don't contact me" box. Cellular, Telephone and Cable are all gravely guilty of this. Sometimes you can't opt-out at signup and have to find an obscure tickbox. Sometimes you can only opt out by calling them and having the Customer Service Representative tick the box, and most of the time they don't know where it is or even if they can do it.
      c) Telemarketing that you have never opted into, and is generally of the fraudulent variety. These are the "Hello I'm Microsoft", the "You won a vacation" and generally fakery caused by spoofing the caller ID.

      Now the solution to A and B is to simply remove yourself from their marketing lists, which is easy to do, and doesn't involve the do-not-call list. Any non-evil company will respect a request to opt-out. However in some cases companies in B will opt you back in if you do something as little as logging back into their site, so be on top of that.
      C however is almost certainly an auto-dialer, or cribbing info you placed into public Whois, Facebook, Twitter, and so forth.

      As for being on both sides of the phone. When I worked for AT&T Wireless, I was scared as hell to call any customer who didn't call me first. That fear haunts me to this day, because people are absolutely not receptive to being cold-called. I was working customer service, the only reason I had to call a customer was to follow-up on something someone else screwed up. Fun times. I've worked for two other call centers as well, and the only people who are receptive to cold-calls are people who have something major to lose if they don't answer.

      So yeah, the DNC list is useful for the evil overseas call centers to spam domestic phones with unwanted telemarketing, and any company caught doing that on behalf of a domestic company needs to be put through the wringer.

    2. Re:Steals your time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to get off the list of companies that repeatedly call you, after telling them that you are on the do-not-call list and asking them to remove your number, is to take some time the next time they call to role play the bumbling American consumer who's disorganized and unable to find their credit card. Basically, you hold them on the line for as long as possible while you pretend to look for your card, give them the fake CC numbers, talk with them about the weather and just generally waste their time while stringing them along about the possibility of making a sale that never actually materializes. When they finally hang up in frustration or anger at being played along you can be reasonably sure that they won't waste their time calling you again.

  5. Fukkin... by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nail 'em to the wall, boys.
     
    Ain't nobody got time for telemarketer calls.
     
    I don't care if the fine money goes to ISIS, better them than telemarketers allowed to roam free in parks where there are unattended children. Bastards.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Fukkin... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      I haven't talked to a telemarketer in years. While I was still on the landline, I set up an asterisk server with a sip gateway that plugged into the landline. Incoming calls were directed into a very simple voice menu system that asked you to press one button if you were a commercial/telemarketing call and another button otherwise. It'd play a canned bit about this number not accepting telemarketing calls to anyone who hit the first button and then hang up on them. Robodialers would just get stuck at the menu. I never had a telemarketer make it through the menu and they were calling two or three times a week for a while there.

      I missed the functionality when I cut the cord and started using a cell phone, but I just run some android call blocker software that sends calls not on a whitelist directly to voicemail. I still prefer my asterisk solution, but it gets the job done and it hasn't ever caused a problem for me. I still get a notification if the caller actually left me a voicemail, so I can check to see if the call was important. It's also easy to disable the software if I'm expecting a call from an unknown number.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Fukkin... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      My Asterisk script:
      • If you are from "Lawyers R Us", drop the phone now.
      • Press 1 for a blow on the head with a blunt instrument
      • Press 2 for a poke in the eye with a sharp stick
      • Press 3 if you want to be on hold till next Thursday
      • Press the number corresponding to my front door if you actually want to talk to ME

      Even the bank employees like a laugh now and again.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  6. The people who were called. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Should be the ones to get the money.

  7. Only 4 states want money? Thus far... by gavron · · Score: 1

    Someone got this story on the early-morning side.

    If there's any money to be had you can bet that every single other state in the Union will have their attorneys general filing suit to join in the grab for cash.

    This isn't about protecting consumers.
    This isn't about punishing companies that screw with consumers.
    It's not even making it about having dinner safe at home at eight o'clock at night without the damn phone ringing.

    It's about government entities wanting MONEY from anyone and everyone they can get it from.

    This won't stay "DOJ and four states" very long.

    E

  8. They can find the source of "premium rate" calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I contend that yes, the phone company *always* has the ability to find the source of a call, otherwise premium-rate (900, 976, phone sex, fortune-teller, etc.) calls would not work.

    I bet if a telemarketer were to call a premium rate number, the phone company would have no problem knowing who to send the $2.99/minute bill to.

  9. As someone who had to fix the dialers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At prc who was one of the outbound vendors on these campaigns years ago it makes me laugh. The davox would routinely merge the do not call list rather than exclude it.

    Management didn't care nor did the on site reps.

    They had this a long time coming.

  10. GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big Business disregards the laws because they feel they're too big to fail. Fine them and let them until they learn.

  11. Awesome, but... by flopsquad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, it's fine they're going after a big company for being robocall jerks.

    I get a bunch of these calls every week and... it's never once been Dish. It's always these sleazy scam operations with "Stop what you're doing I can make you ten thousand bucks" or "The FBI says there's a break-in every 8 minutes." I know it's only anecdotal, but no one I know who complains about annoying robocalls has ever mentioned Dish, it's always scammers.

    I don't doubt that Dish has abused their phone privileges. But while this (unrealistic) fine in the tens of billions of dollars is big headlines for these AGs, maybe before they tear a ligament patting themselves on the back, they could also do some (less glamorous but more impactful) work against these mom and pop scam outfits?

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    1. Re:Awesome, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the voice synthesizer IRS "final warning".

    2. Re:Awesome, but... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Dish is large enough to know better. They're not just a scam operation, they have more than enough money to get lawyers to look into what they're doing and tell them if it's right, and they decided to ignore all of that and go for it anyway. A nice fat punishment would at least show that the DNC list has some teeth, make an example out of them.

    3. Re:Awesome, but... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      And notice they waited until the AT&T / Dish merger was over? Dish doesn't have that kind of cash, but AT&T has a history of lawsuits like this against them and it will be far easier to get a settlement out of AT&T.

    4. Re:Awesome, but... by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      But while this (unrealistic) fine in the tens of billions of dollars is big headlines for these AGs, maybe before they tear a ligament patting themselves on the back, they could also do some (less glamorous but more impactful) work against these mom and pop scam outfits?

      They do. The problem with a fly-by-night operation is that it's a fly-by-night operation. Scammers aren't running legitimate, fixed businesses, and that makes them hard to shutdown.

      What you hear about in the news now and then are the dumb ones. But the smart ones are behind enough VoIP gateways, call centers, and off-shore accounts that you can never trace them to the true individuals running the operation; they'll just shuffle the deck now and then. It's every Internet problem of an attacker going through many proxies combined with the real-world problem of shell companies and jurisdiction.

    5. Re:Awesome, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's modding this up?

      Dish didn't merge w/ AT&T, DirecTV did.

    6. Re:Awesome, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And notice they waited until the AT&T / Dish merger was over? Dish doesn't have that kind of cash, but AT&T has a history of lawsuits like this against them and it will be far easier to get a settlement out of AT&T.

      AT&T Didn't merge with Dish Network, they merged with DirecTV...

      captcha crashed

    7. Re:Awesome, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T merged with DirectTV. Not DISH.

  12. Dish Network is just annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I quit Dish years ago and still get at least two or three pieces of junk mail from them every week wanting me to come back. Now I can tell you the reason I cancelled Dish was not because I hated Dish, or it was too expensive. It was simply that where I moved to I could not get a decent signal. Now I can see Dish Network using different media to sell their services. But to spend postage to continually hound a former customer who cannot receive your service is a waste of advertising dollars.
    Just imagine the money these companies could make by simply targeting more efficiently. If I was running Dish Network, why would I want to send out every week marketing ads to people who certainly don't want my product? If I do change my mind, I am pretty certain I could find Dish Networks number or a affiliated installation dealer to obtain service. But I suspect Dish pays a ad service to mail out these flyers ever week and are paid by the number of subscribers they get. It's not about targeting at all. Its just about sheer numbers.

  13. Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    To throw the low-level workers into the slammer, too.

    "I was just following orders" is not a valid excuse.

    1. Re:Remember by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Throw the share holders and all customers in too. They were funding this entire mess.

    2. Re:Remember by sehlat · · Score: 2

      Customers, no. They're innocent victims.

      Stockholders, however, are like the owner of a vicious dog who refuses
      to take responsibility for the dog's behavior.

      The current approach of "Well, I talked to the dog and I think he understands and I've paid the fine.
      Besides, the toddler was trespassing." just doesn't cut it.

    3. Re:Remember by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Were they? I was under the impression that the typical slashdot mantra is that you can vote with your wallet, in which case customers are part of the problem.

      I'm just calling out the absurdity of throwing an entire company's workforce into the slammer, especially low-level workers who have far more riding on following orders than a customer does by supporting a company with a monthly subscription fee.

    4. Re:Remember by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Throw the share holders and all customers in too. They were funding this entire mess.

      If you have a 401k and it invests in NASDAQ index or comm stocks, then you are also one of the shareholders.
      As a rough guess, I would say there are probably 60 million people in the U.S. that are either shareholders or customers of this company. That is a lot of people to put in prison.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Remember by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's my point. If you're going to go all the way down then why stop at low level employees. This is the USA, just arrest everyone in the country and call it a day.

    6. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a few shares of stock in the company I work for. We get to vote for board members. As if the board holding the majority of the shares wasn't strong enough control, the rest of the things that are decided by the shareholders are all "non-binding" votes. So, you are suggesting I get thrown in jail over illegal action that I've got no control over and no visibility of? I hope you can find enough taxpayers to support the prison system. And that is entirely ignoring my 401k that I probably don't even know where my money is invested.

    7. Re: Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how the mexican fence will get made.

  14. Political Exception by Etherwalk · · Score: 4, Informative

    But if the Republicans rulers of a corporation hire thousands of co-conspirators to call the people in order to prevent us from communicating by calling us and tieing up our communication devices thus not allowing us to communicate, then they have taken our voice. They are taking our voice.

    Actually, Congress has written all of these laws to make an exception for... Congress. Political fundraisers can call you all they want.

  15. Re: They can find the source of "premium rate" cal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be an interesting call, at any rate.

  16. Re:Only 4 states want money? Thus far... by geoskd · · Score: 1

    This won't stay "DOJ and four states" very long.

    Yes it will. According to the article, the other 46 states already settled.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  17. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds more like a fine the failed banks should have gotten.

    1. Re:What? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fine for a bank failing should be the bank failing. The "bailout" should be given to depositors (there was even an existing mechanism for that, the FDIC), not to the institution that lost the funds. But no, apparently we live in an age where mediocrity and incompetence is rewarded and excellence is restricted. Cos you'll just make the rest of us look bad, ya know?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:What? by Stinky+Cheese+Man · · Score: 1

      we live in an age where mediocrity and incompetence is rewarded and excellence is restricted

      In today's news, a Minnesota youth basketball team has been ejected from their league for being too good.

    3. Re:What? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The fine for a bank failing should be the bank failing. The "bailout" should be given to depositors (there was even an existing mechanism for that, the FDIC), not to the institution that lost the funds. But no, apparently we live in an age where mediocrity and incompetence is rewarded and excellence is restricted. Cos you'll just make the rest of us look bad, ya know?

      Or at least be nationalized when bailed out but hey, that would be 'un-American'.

      If the taxpayers bail out a company, that company should then belong to the taxpayers.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  18. Go after AT&T too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dropped all services with them, written and verbal notice to stop sending me email and snailmail AND to stop knocking on my door trying to sell me U-Verse. There's a good sized sign on my door "NO SOLICITORS" but those a-holes still knock on my door every few months pissing me off by trying to sell U-Verse. More phone calls to AT&T are useless. Maybe they can read, maybe the only letters they learned in 1st grade were A and T.

    1. Re:Go after AT&T too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law is slightly different if you had a previous business relationship with the company versus cold calling. AT&T can bug you to a point.

    2. Re:Go after AT&T too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're only allowed to contact you for 6 months after you've done any business with them. It's been over 5 years. I even sent written notice and got a reply that contact would stop.

    3. Re:Go after AT&T too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So get a restraining order for their salesmen - or just use violence.

    4. Re:Go after AT&T too... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > So get a restraining order for their salesmen

      Interesting idea -- how hard is that to get? It can't be _that_ easy, right? Don't you need to provide a "valid" reason?

    5. Re:Go after AT&T too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your honor, different salesmen/saleswomen keep knocking on my door. Can I have a restraining order with no names on it?"

    6. Re:Go after AT&T too... by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Perhaps add "this includes you, AT&T" on your sign. I actually invited the AT&T U-Verse guy in, we talked to him, even had him come back a second time...just to tell him that once U-Verse included all the other BBC channels (not just BBC America) then we would most certainly get their service. Four years later, they still haven't come back yet.

    7. Re:Go after AT&T too... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      "Sure you can come in. I hope you don't mind that the twins have smallpox" used to work well for my parents. These days, you might want to mention Ebola or Zika.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    8. Re:Go after AT&T too... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      "Sure come on in and I'll be able to tell you how Jesus saved my life. I was a wicked person years ago but Jesus found me and now with daily prayer... hey, where are you going?"

  19. Dish does not play ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If dish network had bothered taking and interest in politics and gave the appropriate campaign contributions (bribes) this would not have happened. You will notice the AG did not go after COX or time werner. See those companies took an interest in politics.

    It is not about the law. It is about keeping the gold flowing through the right channels so that the laws will be enforced and interpreted in a manner that is conducive to you interests.

  20. Re:Political Exception - WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.

    What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.

  21. DOJ will keep the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they fine Dish the "victims" will get squat.

    1. Re:DOJ will keep the money by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Similar to class action lawsuits, the purpose of fines like this is not really to reward the victims, it's to punish the company that's breaking the law. I don't care where the money goes as long as it's not in Dish/ATT's accounts anymore.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  22. Fines to the state? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these penalties and fines go to the state... Te,embarks ting would stop in an instant if the penalties went even in part to the people who were called illegally.

  23. Loud whistle by the phone time by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    Nasty...

  24. Consumers by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    The 16K violation should go to each person that fell victim to it.

  25. Ive been called by dish telemarketers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    indeed it is by far the most common type of telemarketing call i still get.

    It was also why i cancelled my service with dish.

  26. Surprising by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Ten years ago, when I was still getting calls asking me to subscribe to a satellite service, they were all 3rd party vendors, some of them dishonest. Did Dish become too stupid to use a cutout?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  27. Re:Political Exception - WRONG by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.

    What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.

    So *one* anti-phone-spam law they haven't carved out an exception on. They only wrote the law to let them and their fundraisers harass us on LANDLINES. How incredibly considerate of them.

    And anyone who says political calls aren't telemarketing is selling something.

  28. Possible Trespass to Chattels by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    When in Law School, a friend tried to frame 'fax spamming' as a Trespass to Chattels. They use your paper, ink, and equipment, after all.

    If the Trespass argument held water, then perhaps it could be extended to robocalls which can, depending on your plan, use up your minutes or text credits. They'd also take up some of your answering machine or cell phone's memory.

    It was a class project. I don't know if it was ever used in actual court arguments. IANAL.

  29. Re: Political Exception - WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they know if its a land line or cell? I ported my land line number to my cell years ago.

  30. Get a professional hacker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I met Danny in 2013 , he is a professional security analyst and certified hacker. the time I met him he already was certified since 2009 and he is very good at testing securities. They hack email passwords, Social networks , Whats'app conversations, Cellphones, Any os .Clear criminal records, Change university grades, Improve credit rating , Bank transfers. You can contact him by sending a mail to danielphills@cyberservices.com, I bet he is competent and savvy enough to solve your problem whatever it might be!!!!!!