|
Posted by danny burstein on February 27, 2008, 8:40 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Under the federal mandates, most telemarketers
are forbidden from calling cellphones.
My question: How are they supposed to pre-identify
the cellular numbers? In the Good Old Days cellphones
had their own area codes and/or NNX (prefix) numbers,
but that's ancient history. And doubly so with
"number portability".
So how are the telemarketers [spit] supposed to check
these out?
Similarly, since they're mandated to pre-check the
federal "do not call" list, it certainly seems
to make sense for cellular users to register their
phones anyway. No downside I can see.
(And for that matter, even though the list isn't
supposed to apply to business lines [spit, double spit],
I'd guess adding those numbers wouldn't hurt, either.)
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
|
  | |
Posted by www.Queensbridge.us on February 27, 2008, 10:14 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Under the federal mandates, most telemarketers
> are forbidden from calling cellphones.
>
> My question: How are they supposed to pre-identify
> the cellular numbers? In the Good Old Days cellphones
> had their own area codes and/or NNX (prefix) numbers,
> but that's ancient history. And doubly so with
> "number portability".
>
> So how are the telemarketers [spit] supposed to check
> these out?
>
> Similarly, since they're mandated to pre-check the
> federal "do not call" list, it certainly seems
> to make sense for cellular users to register their
> phones anyway. No downside I can see.
>
> (And for that matter, even though the list isn't
> supposed to apply to business lines [spit, double spit],
> I'd guess adding those numbers wouldn't hurt, either.)
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dan...@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
In NYC calls to land lines can cost the recipient. During recent NY
Primary Obama people used abusive robot telemarketing telephone calls
that cost the recipients money!! If telemarketing call goes to your
Verizon Voice Mail Box you are billed for a forwarded call. If you
call in to hear message you are billed for ANOTHER call. 22" total.
|
|
Posted by Robert Bonomi on February 28, 2008, 10:54 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >> Under the federal mandates, most telemarketers
>> are forbidden from calling cellphones.
>>
>> My question: How are they supposed to pre-identify
>> the cellular numbers? In the Good Old Days cellphones
>> had their own area codes and/or NNX (prefix) numbers,
>> but that's ancient history. And doubly so with
>> "number portability".
>>
>> So how are the telemarketers [spit] supposed to check
>> these out?
>>
>> Similarly, since they're mandated to pre-check the
>> federal "do not call" list, it certainly seems
>> to make sense for cellular users to register their
>> phones anyway. No downside I can see.
>>
>> (And for that matter, even though the list isn't
>> supposed to apply to business lines [spit, double spit],
>> I'd guess adding those numbers wouldn't hurt, either.)
>>
>
>In NYC calls to land lines can cost the recipient. During recent NY
>Primary Obama people used abusive robot telemarketing telephone calls
>that cost the recipients money!! If telemarketing call goes to your
>Verizon Voice Mail Box you are billed for a forwarded call. If you
>call in to hear message you are billed for ANOTHER call. 22" total.
The TCPA law is precise in it's language, and call-forwarding costs are
_NOT_ an actionable basis against an unwanted caller, under it.
|
|
Posted by Robert Bonomi on February 28, 2008, 5:33 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >Under the federal mandates, most telemarketers
>are forbidden from calling cellphones.
TRUE. _EXCEPT_ if they have the express permission of the paying party,
that is.
>My question: How are they supposed to pre-identify
>the cellular numbers? In the Good Old Days cellphones
>had their own area codes and/or NNX (prefix) numbers,
>but that's ancient history. And doubly so with
>"number portability".
That's _their_ problem. <grin>
(The law was passed before 'portability' was much of an issue.)
If they don't *know* it's not a cell phone they _are_ risking FCC penalties.
>So how are the telemarketers [spit] supposed to check
>these out?
They *DO* have possible ways -- including buying access to the 'portability
database' -- *all* it requires is _money_. Doing 'authoritative' checks
may be more expensive that a marketer is willing to pay, but that does _not_
excuse them from liability for transgressions.
>Similarly, since they're mandated to pre-check the
>federal "do not call" list, it certainly seems
>to make sense for cellular users to register their
>phones anyway. No downside I can see.
yup.
>(And for that matter, even though the list isn't
>supposed to apply to business lines [spit, double spit],
>I'd guess adding those numbers wouldn't hurt, either.)
People calling strictly business listings are _not_ required to vet against
the DNC list. "Inadvertent" errors are not actionable -- if one can show
that one has made a sufficient 'good faith effort' to exclude numbers one
should not call, penalties will not be accessed.
|
|
Posted by on February 28, 2008, 5:47 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Under the federal mandates, most telemarketers
> are forbidden from calling cellphones.
>
> My question: How are they supposed to pre-identify
> the cellular numbers? In the Good Old Days cellphones
> had their own area codes and/or NNX (prefix) numbers,
> but that's ancient history. And doubly so with
> "number portability".
I think number portability is between cell phones only, not between a
cell phone and a land line. I think all cell phones still remain in
certain designated exchanges. Anyone know of examples where
cellphones share an exchange with a conventional landline?
However, I've heard that they've managed to go smaller than an
exchange, down to the next level of 1000s. That is, 311-555-2nnn
would be assigned to one service, 311-555-3nnn would be assigned to a
completely difference service, etc. Is that true now?
> Similarly, since they're mandated to pre-check the
> federal "do not call" list, it certainly seems
> to make sense for cellular users to register their
> phones anyway. No downside I can see.
I did.
> (And for that matter, even though the list isn't
> supposed to apply to business lines [spit, double spit],
> I'd guess adding those numbers wouldn't hurt, either.)
I did that too, but it didn't help. Business solicitors apparently
don't bother checking the list before hand.
There are several serious unresolved problems with the 'do not call'
lists:
1) Businesses simply ignore the rules: I've been solicited by
businesses who falsely claimed they did work for me in the past, when
in fact they did not. (Like a lawncare company seeking business
calling me--when I don't have a lawn.) They also called my mother in
the nursing home but nursing home calls are forbidden. They either
didn't bother to check or didn't care.
2) Charity, surveys, and political calls are allowed. The volume of
these calls is extremely high, particularly on election day. They're
sloppy, too. I explicitly took my mother off the voting rolls after
her passing, but they still repeatedly called for her to come in and
vote. I am inundated with charity calls and survey calls. [As an
aside, many 'charities' are in reality profit-making businesses, with
only a small percentage of the take going to actual charity, the rest
retained by the solicitor agent. It's a big business.]
3) No enforcement of violators: So someone gets an illegal
solicitation call. People have lives, they don't have time to log the
call or report it, many people don't have Caller-ID, and solicitors
often send out "111-111-1111".
IMHO, the legislatures really let us down. It took way too long to
get these laws and they're too weak, the telemarketing busienss is a
big one and they have their powerful lobbyists.
***** Moderator's Note *****
Lisa,
The solution to the telemarketing problem is both simple and
straightforward. All it takes is for _everyone_ to help each other.
If everybody who gets an unwanted call from a telemarketer just hangs
up, the salesman is overjoyed: statistically, he knows that he's that
much closer to a "hit", and all it cost him was about twenty seconds
of time.
However, if we all took the time to _listen_ to the pitch, the
industry would be bankrupt in a few months. Think about it: when the
phone rings, you've *already* been bothered. Your quiet enjoyment of
your free time has *already* been stolen from you. The best solution
is to "Take one for the team", and listen to the entire pitch, asking
polite questions about membership in the Better Business Bureau and
refund policies, and then, after about five minutes, just say "I've
decided I'm not interested. Please put my number on your "do not call"
list".
Five minutes versus twenty seconds. See what I mean?
(BTW, please email me off list on an unrelated matter: cdt atsign
timesucker period homelinux period org. TIA.)
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 12, 2007, 10:05 am |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 12, 2007, 10:13 pm |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 12, 2007, 4:00 pm |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 12, 2007, 5:23 pm |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 12, 2007, 10:26 pm |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 13, 2007, 2:25 am |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 13, 2007, 8:38 am |
| Re: Cell Phone Numbers and Do Not Call List | July 13, 2007, 12:41 pm |
| Re: Portability Issues (was: cell phones & do not call) [telecom] | March 1, 2008, 7:29 am |
| Re: Portability Issues (was: cell phones & do not call) [telecom] | March 2, 2008, 10:10 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map