[Mike Irwin]

Lovely. Just lovely...

OK, time to start playing "Tourette's Syndrom Sufferer" with the marketers...

From the Washington Post.

"A U.S. District Court has knocked down the federal government's plan to curb unsolicited telemarketing calls through a national do-not-call list that was scheduled to start next week.

More than 50 million phone numbers have been posted to the anti-telemarketing registry; as of October 1, telemarketers were supposed to stop calling those numbers.

Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City issued a decision late Monday saying the Federal Trade Commission lacked authority to develop the list.

Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said. An administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must "always be grounded in a valid grant of authority from Congress," West said.

FTC spokeswoman Cathy MacFarlane said the agency was reviewing the court's ruling.

Telemarketing experts said the do-not-call list may not be able to go forward unless the agency wins on appeal or Congress specifically gives the agency authority to implement it.

The lawsuit challenging the do-not-call list was filed by the Direct Marketing Association, which represents many companies that telemarket. The association said in a statement that it was grateful for the judge's decision, but acknowledged "the wishes of millions of U.S. consumers who have expressed their preference not to receive telephone-marketing solicitatons." DMA said it would work with the FTC to evaluate the implications of the court decision."

[spacemanspiff]

i think i'll get a whistle and keep it next to the phone.

[C.R.Sam]

Oh well, guess I will have to stay with keeping them on the phone as long as possible.:rolleyes:

Sam

Just in....suggestion from friend via email.
Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City
Home phone in all public places.

[Keith]

Just lay the phone down and walk away. You'll be surpised at how often they simply keep rattling on forever. It wastes their time and keeps your blood pressure from rising.

Keith

[foghornl]

I say to the tele-scammer "..Just a second, I gotta see who's at the door"..Toss phone onto bed and walk away...

[Partisan Ranger]

Find out the judge's phone number and call him nonstop between 6 and 8 pm.

[pax]

Sam --

That's easier to do if you have a 5-year-old anywhere handy. Just hand the phone to him -- watch his little eyes light up! Watch his little tongue wag and wag!

:D Yes, I'm evil. But the kids always thought it was a great game.

pax

For three days after death, hair and fingernails continue to grow, but phone calls taper off. -- Johnny Carson

[mtnbkr]

Not that it really matters. I had a message on my machine from a telemarkter that started out with him identifying himself as a non-profit something or other, which is legal under the new rules. I bet most telemarketers will be identifying themselves as non-profits. I'll stick to ignoring the house phone and having friends/family call the cellphone.

Chris

[Brett Bellmore]

Fifty million people signed up to be on the list. Congress will pass that law so fast your head will spin.

[Jeff White]

I have Privacy manager. It's a service my phone company sells that takes any call not putting out caller ID signals and makes the caller identify themselves before the call is connected. Once the caller records their name or company, the call is put through. At that point I can listen to the ID, either accept the call, deny the call or even play the Sales Call Refusal message :)

My phone is much quieter then it used to be.

Jeff

[Sergeant Bob]

Isn't it a bit ironic (not surprising though) that you can get fifty million people to sign up for a "do not call" list, or to oppose ATM fees, but so few find the AWB or the Patriot Acts important enough to call there representatives in Congress?

[DigitalWarrior]

Mess with people's comfort and they will whine.

[Brian Dale]

They've just generated a list of fifty million confirmed, valid names and telephone numbers. The annoyance-mongers are going to be selling this one right and left, as soon as it's leaked (for $$$$) to one of them.

:cuss:

What tinfoil hat?

[El Tejon]

Telemarketers don't call me. The got tired of hearing about the space aliens who advised me that I should not buy their product.:D

[jdege]

Look, I don't much care for telmarketers, either. But the court is right. Regulatory agencies should not be allowed to establish rules without specific congressional authorization.

IMO, regulatory agencies shouldn't be allowed to establish rules that have the force of law, at all. Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate its law-making powers to anyone, particularly to branches of the executive.

But that seems to be a lost cause.

[Aikibiker]

For extra fun with the automated calling machines, try hitting the # button 10 or so times. Should cause the thing to reset itself and as an added bonus will knock your number off the list.

It is lots of fun to do this to the human operators too.

[cuchulainn]

I usually don't answer anything that comes up as variations of "unknown caller" on my caller I.D., but if I'm feeling obnoxious, I'll pick up and no matter what question they ask, I say "I don't understand your question."

At first they don't get that you're messing with them, and it's fun to listen to them try to help you "understand."

"Hi this is Amy from AT&T Wireless. Do you have a cell phone right now?"

"I don't understand your question."

"Do you have cell phone service?"

"I don't understand your question."

"A wireless phone. Do you have one?"

"I don't understand your question."

"A cell phone is a phone that doesn't have wires. You carry it with you."

"OK."

"Well, do you have one?"

"I don't understand your question."

[jdege]

"I'm sorry, I'm not the person you should be talking to. Let me get her for you...."

[hammer4nc]

Although Congress gave the agency funding to run the list, it did not give the FTC specific authority to implement the list, West said.

Nonsensical statement. I'd like the judge to explain why congress would authorize collecting names for a no-call list, only to do nothing with it? He'd probably argue that it was for information purposes only, or some such thing. In context with other court decisions, this is equally moronic.

[jimpeel]

This was patently unconstitutional and an anti-trust move by the govermnment. I -- as opposed to the 50 million who signed up for this turkey -- am not too damned lazy to utter the words "Please place me on your 'do not call' list".

Everyone has the right to work and this "law" -- celebrated by so many here -- was just plain wrong. Those who would celebrate this idiocy would cry "Foul!" the instant their livlihood was decreed "annoying". Of course, the right not to be annoyed is right there in the Constitution ... isn't it .. I mean it's, ah, right there ... isn't it ... well ... isn't it?

Tell me if this refrain doesn't sound somewhat familiar:

"I don't work in that business. They won't ever outlaw my profession."

Hint:

"I don't own any of those types of firearms. They won't ever come for my side-by-side."

The best and surest way for me to lose my rights and freedoms is for me to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others.

[jimpeel]

i think i'll get a whistle and keep it next to the phone.Bad idea. Blowing a whistle through the phone can cause permanent hearing damage. Remember, THEY HAVE YOUR PHONE NUMBER. To prevent a five cent phone call you would place yourself in the position of having to fight a five million dollar lawsuit?

Just politely say "No thank you. Would you please place me on your 'do not call' list?" and hang up the phone.

[Seminole]

Well, there is always Dave Barry's (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/6649728.htm) solution:

This is from August, but the idea at the end of the column is still a good one. According to the Miami Herald (Barry's home paper), thousands of people called the American Telemarketer's Association, which apparently ticked them off thoroughly. I love it. . . .

There's just over a year to go before the 2004 presidential election, and everybody in the nation is extremely excited. Except of course the public. The public, shrewdly, pays no attention to presidential politics until all of the peripheral dorks have been weeded out, and it's finally time to make a selection between the two main dorks left over.

So what does the public care about right now? Telemarketers. The public hates them. It hates them even more than it hates France, low-flow toilets or ''customer service.''

We know this because recently the Federal Trade Commission, implementing the most popular federal concept since the Elvis stamp, created the National Do Not Call Registry. The way it works is, if you are a member of that select group of people (defined as ''people with phones'') who do not wish to receive unsolicited calls from telemarketers, you can go to www.donotcall.gov and register your phone number. Starting Oct. 1, any telemarketer who calls you will be locked in a tiny room with a large, insatiable man who will force the telemarketer, repeatedly, at all hours of the day and night, to change his long-distance provider.

No, sorry, that was the original concept. But the law is pretty strict: For each call to a registered number, telemarketers face an $11,000 fine. This program is a huge hit with the public. Already 30 million American households have registered; this figure would be even higher if it included all the Florida residents who tried to register but accidentally voted for Patrick Buchanan instead.

And how has the telemarketing industry responded to this tidal wave of public hostility? It has issued this statement: ''Gosh, if these people really don't want us to call them, then there's no point in our calling them! We'd only be making them hate us more, and that's just plain stupid! We'll try to come up with a less offensive way to do business.''

No, wait, that's what the telemarketers would say in Bizarro World, where everything is backward, and Superman is bad, and telemarketers contain human DNA. Here on Earth, the telemarketers are claiming they have a constitutional right to call people who do not want to be called. They base this claim on Article VX, Section iii, row 5, seat 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which states: ''If anybody ever invents the telephone, Congress shall pass no law prohibiting salespeople from using it to interrupt dinner.''

Leading the charge for the telemarketing industry is the American Teleservices Association (suggested motto: 'Some Day, We Will Get a Dictionary and Look Up 'Services' ''). This group argues that, if its members are prohibited from calling people who do not want to be called, then two million telemarketers will lose their jobs. Of course, you could use pretty much the same reasoning to argue that laws against mugging cause unemployment among muggers. But that would be unfair. Muggers rarely intrude into your home.

So what's the answer? Is there a constitutional way that we telephone customers can have our peace, without inconveniencing the people whose livelihoods depend on keeping their legal right to inconvenience us? Maybe we could pay the telemarketing industry not to call us, kind of like paying ''protection money'' to organized crime. Or maybe we could actually hire organized crime to explain our position to telemarketing-industry executives, who would then be given a fair opportunity to respond, while the cement was hardening.

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm sure you have a better idea for how we can resolve our differences with the telemarketing industry. If you do, call me. No, wait, I have a better idea: Call the American Teleservices Association, toll-free, at 1-877-779-3974, and tell them what you think. I'm sure they'd love to hear your constitutionally protected views! Be sure to wipe your mouthpiece afterward.

[Jeff White]

jimpeel,
I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I pay for my telephone out of my paycheck. I don't purchase phone service so that someone may use it to annoy me with sales pitches or anything else. Perhaps if the telemarketers wanted to pick up a percentage of my phone bill every month, they'd have the right to call me. As it is they are using my property and a service I pay for to try to sell me their product.

I feel the same way about spam e-mails. I pay for my ISP. No one has the right to use a service I pay for to annoy me.

Let the telemarkerters and spammers buy ad time on TV and the radio. Let them put up billboards on the highway....They shouldn't be legally able to use a service I pay for to annoy me with their ads.

This isn't a right to work issue, it's all about them using my equipment and my services to try to sell me their product. If they want to call me and sell me something, they can buy a phone and a line and install it in my house. (we'll see how often I would answer) Until then I don't think they should be able to use my phone or a line I pay for to sell me a service. What is the difference between me as owner of the telephone equipment and lessor of the phone line saying you can't use my phone to call me and attempt to sell me anything, and an business man saying employees can't use the company phone service for personal business? I don't see any difference. It's my phone and my service, I should have the ability to opt out of commercial use of it. I pay for it.

Jeff

[TarpleyG]

it's all about them using my equipment and my services to try to sell me their product. If they want to call me and sell me something
What about TV commercials??? Granted, network TV is not a paid service but they are using your equipment to sell you goods and services.

GT

[Moparmike]

First off, if ANYONE lies to you on the phone, or curses on the phone, it is a FELONY offense that the FCC will suposedly prosecute.

Ok, suggestions:

1. Learn how to say "I dont speak english" in 20 different obscure languages. (Like Farsi, Mandarin Chinese, Swahili, Klingon, Greek, Binary, etc. Use your imagination.) Use this everytime one calls.
2. As previously mentioned, hand the phone off to a kid. Its damned annoying.
3. Immediatly go into an "answering machine message" speil (Hello? [they tell you who they are] Ha! Got you. Bet you thought I was really here. etc etc.). It will confuse them into hanging up. Its SOP for telemarketers.
4. Belch. Loudly and repeatedly.
5. Go into a coughing fit. Or a sneezing fit. At least as long as they stay on the line.
6. Yell and curse vehemently. The FCC wont prosecute you like they will telemarketers.
7. Ask in a deep funny southern accent: "Have you been saved?" and go into a holy speech. Do your best televangelist impression, the one who got cought with the hooker would be best.:D
8. Ask for computer help. Everytime they open their mouth, mention another problem.
9. Go into a 2nd Amendment tirade. Accuse them of being a commie pinko liberal (I dont care about your political leanings, just accuse them of it.) and blame them for everything from Gray Davis to the color of sunsets. Froth at the mouth, it aids in your demeanor.
10. Mow the lawn while you talk.
11. Weedeat while you talk.
12. Play a loud musical instrument while you talk.
13. GO SHOOTING WHILE YOU TALK!!!!

BWWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!! Its always best to have someone on the inside...

[Jeff White]

What about TV commercials???

The commercials pay for the programming. The telemarketing calls do not pay any portion of my phone bill.

Jeff

[jimpeel]

What about commercials on cable TV? You pay for that service, rent the line coming into your home, and own the television. Same thing, different equipment and service.

Just be polite and say "Please place me on your 'do not call' list" and hang up. Do you really need the government to do that for you?

The laws already in place allow you to recover damages if they call you again. If they do, ask for the supervisor, tell them that you are on their "do not call" list and that they owe you the specified damages for this call.

[Mike Irwin]

"Everyone has the right to work..."

Where's that in the Constitution?

No, everyone does not have the right to work, and they certainly don't have the right to disturb me with solicitations for services in which I have no interest.

It is good that these individuals have jobs. Thats great. But I don't have to like what they do, and I don't have to accept what they do as an intrusion into my private life.

My community has a "No solicitors" policy, and I've run more than one siding salesman out of here.

[jimpeel]

Where's that in the Constitution? Maybe not in the Constitution but I think it is buried somewhere in here:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

[sm]

Iamhelltocatchonthetelephone. Ask anyone whom has tried to reach me...ain't that right Preacherman ? :D

I have dial -up ISP. A lot of what I do is online (school, online classes, etc.)
Caller ID
Ringer turned off mostly.

People have my email addy's, I can tell if family, friend, school, or business by the email addy. Different groups have different addy's. So , yep I screen.

Heck , I went to watch the TV , wouldn't work...oops, forgot to plug back- in when I dusted last ( whenever that was). Isolated in my own dwelling...Ok, got tunes...Pink Floyd, THR, and Online class...coffee's ready !

[BogBabe]

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

How on earth does that translate into the right to use my phone service, that I pay for, and my telephone, that I bought, to interrupt me in the privacy of my own home to try to sell me something?

No one has a "right" to engage in commerce with me against my will. No one has a "right" to use a service that I've paid for to attempt to engage in commerce with me against my will.

The "do not call" list does not forbid telemarketers from calling people who don't mind receiving their calls. It merely provides an easy and centralized way for people to tell the telemarketers "Don't call me."

Edited to add a quote from Neal Boortz's program notes this morning that express this concept very well:

a private individual should be able to post a "no trespassing" sign on their phone number just as they can on any other piece of property they own.

As an aside, I recently hooked up a fax machine to my phone line. Anyone calling that number gets the annoying fax tones. It's amazing how much telemarketing calls have dropped since I did that. :)

[XLMiguel]

Just to keep this gun-related, what would you like to shoot a telemarketer with?

[Dorrin79]

seems fair to me. The Do Not Call registry seemed overreaching to me.

Not that I'm fond of telemarketing, but I'm less fond of government "helping" me.

[BogBabe]

But Dorrin, in this case, the government is "helping" you by protecting your property rights -- which is one of the few legitimate functions of government.

[mtnbkr]

I tried telling telemarketers to take me off their list for a year. My call volume actually increased. The problem with pursuing these guys legally is that the company calling is not necessarily the company they are calling for. I've tried to ask for supervisors, phone numbers, etc. None of it is effective. We no longer answer our house phone. We use our cellphones, but only give it out to friends, family, and trusted businesses. We've been doing that for about 8 months now and the phone still rings about 6-7 times a day. :banghead:

If you don't like the idea of a "do not call registry", don't put your number on it. The telemarketers can call you.

As for which gun to use...I want to use something small and weak. I want them to suffer. 25AC ought to work. :evil:

Chris

[cordex]

How on earth does that translate into the right to use my phone service, that I pay for, and my telephone, that I bought, to interrupt me in the privacy of my own home to try to sell me something?
As was pointed out earlier ... same argument can be made against commercials on cable or satellite TV.
"But commercials help pay for the service!"
Businesses buy time from networks (even the ones you pay for) in order to sell things to you. Telespammers buy time from the phone company in order to sell things to you.
If you don't want to watch a commercial, you can change channels, hit the mute button or turn off the TV. Or not have a TV in the first place.
Why can't you just hang up your phone?
No one has a "right" to engage in commerce with me against my will. No one has a "right" to use a service that I've paid for to attempt to engage in commerce with me against my will.
Wait just a minute ... You made the choice to have a telephone. The service you pay for is to allow anyone, anywhere to be able to contact you via a vocal communications network. That is what you are buying. If you want to buy further service (prevention of arbitrary unwanted callers), I'm sure your phone company would be willing to sell it to you.

I wonder ....

If someone proposed a "National Do Not Carry List", where companies and property owners would just have to put their name on a list and anyone who carried a handgun on their property would immediately be fined $11,000 .... how well would that go over? It is unquestionably their right to refuse to allow you to carry a weapon on their property, isn't it? Well why shouldn't they be allowed to put up a giant, centralized "Do not carry!" sign?

[Joe Demko]

I wait to find out what they are selling and then reply:
"Well, I ain't interested in nothin' like that. Now if'n you kin fix me up with some of them there pornygraphic videos like I seen down to my cousin's house last night, mebbe we kin do some business. I likes the kind what's got mostly wimmen. [slobbery laugh] [/slobbery laugh]"

Telephonne solicitors are nearly as much fun as census takers and the pollsters at the mall.

[BogBabe]

As was pointed out earlier ... same argument can be made against commercials on cable or satellite TV. "But commercials help pay for the service!"
Businesses buy time from networks (even the ones you pay for) in order to sell things to you. Telespammers buy time from the phone company in order to sell things to you.

Sorry, the analogy doesn't hold up. When a business buys time from the network in order to try to sell things to me, they are subsidizing the service I'm receiving (television). If the telespammers paid the telephone company to provide me with free phone service, and if I chose to have that service, paid for by the spammers, then they would have every right to call me.

If you don't want to watch a commercial, you can change channels, hit the mute button or turn off the TV. Or not have a TV in the first place.
Why can't you just hang up your phone?

Again, the analogy doesn't hold up. The television doesn't summon me from whatever else I was doing to go watch a commercial that I then have the option of turning off. The television only beams commercials at me when I'm already watching it.

A phone call, OTOH, could be from my daughter, calling with an emergency. Or from my mother, calling to tell me my father had a heart attack. Or from my husband, broken down by the side of the road and needing me to go pick him up. So I answer, and it's some waste of oxygen wanting to sell me siding for my house. BIG difference there. The television never turns itself on and summons me when I'm busy with something else, and even if it did, I would feel free to ignore it, as there would never be a possibility that what it was about to beam at me would be an emergency call from a loved one.

With television, I have the option of never watching broadcast stations with commercials. I can choose to only ever watch rented videos on it. Or subscribe to a cable service and only watch channels that don't carry commercials. Or I can leave it off all the time (which is what I usually do) and it NEVER interrupts me with what could be an emergency call from a loved one.

Anyway, as I wrote earlier, it makes no never mind to me. I've finally trained all my family and friends to only call me on my cell phone. Telemarketers are the only people who ever call the land-line, and they get fax tones. :) I still put my number on the don't call list, though.

[buzz_knox]

Two options:

1. Respond to all questions with "I don't know about that, but I sure like cheese" in your best inbred voice.

2. Tell them "you've got a nice voice" followed by "yeah, yeah! Keep talking, I'm almost there!" or "let me slip into something more comfortable, like my happy sock" ;)

[Mike Irwin]

Hey, guess what....

The Declaration of Independence is NOT a foundation-of-government document in this country!

And it does not say "Life, liberty, a noon to 9:30 job selling ???? by phone, and the pursuit of liberty," just as it does not say "Life, liberty, having to listen to :cuss:holes trying to sell me crap, and the pursuit of happiness."

So once again, no one has the right to a job in this country. That's determined by the market conditions in our capitalist economic model.

And no one has the right to disturb my happiness OR my life by trying to sell me crap that I simply don't want.

[cuchulainn]

As was pointed out earlier ... same argument can be made against commercials on cable or satellite TV.
"But commercials help pay for the service!"
Businesses buy time from networks (even the ones you pay for) in order to sell things to you. Telespammers buy time from the phone company in order to sell things to you.
If you don't want to watch a commercial, you can change channels, hit the mute button or turn off the TV. Or not have a TV in the first place.
Why can't you just hang up your phone? False analogy.

1) TV advertisers do not have the ability to activate your TV when you don't want it to be activated. Telemarketers do with your phone. If TV advertisers had that power, your TV would automatically turn on at all hours of the day and loudly spew ads at you -- even if you or your cholicky baby just got to sleep.

2) If TV ads and telemarketing worked the same way, then telemarketers would provide, for example, free long-distance calling in exchange for listening to a short ad before the call went through or say after every 15 minutes of call time (not a bad idea actually). With TV, you knowingly and voluntarily make an exchange: ads keep TV shows (even on cable) from being "pay per view" or premium (like HBO). There is no such exchange with telemarketing.


When telemarketing companies start paying for some or all of my phone service and limit themselves to simple, pre-recorded ads that I listen to only when I choose to use the phone service, then I'll see them as being just as benign as TV advertisers.

[Mike Irwin]

"As was pointed out earlier ... same argument can be made against commercials on cable or satellite TV.
"But commercials help pay for the service!"

Actually, no, it can't.

Television and radio are fundamentally different than the telephone.

Telephone is a service for which you specifically contract. It is routed into your home at your specific request and you pay for it individually. It's a medium of communication between two people -- you, and the person you call, or who calls you. That call is not broadcast all over the United States for everyone to hear as TV and radio signals are. If someone intercepts your communication via telephone (wiretapping), it's a crime. Listening in on a party line conversation is likewise a crime.

Television, even cable TV, and radio, are mass media. The communication flow is essentially one way, not two way as in a telephone.

One could argue that cable TV is the same as the telephone, but that's also no true.

When everyone here signed up for cable TV, the rules of the road, as it was, were already set. You CONTRACTED to receive advertising in the form of commercials. In essence, they are solicited. You knew exactly what you were getting.

The massive rise in telemarketing sales over the past 20 years, though, is quite different. No one, when they originally sign up for phone service, has the expectation of receiving 5, 10, or even 20 solicitation calls a day. That's because the telephone is a private means of communication, not mass media.

[Mike Irwin]

Buzzknox,

That's just RUDE!

And quite hysterical. :D

[cuchulainn]

Mike Irwin,

Though we're in agreement about telemarketing and "do not call," you really shouldn't make the argument that the lack of enumeration in the Constitution makes something a non-right :)

People do have the (unenumerated) right to work -- they just don't have the right to have work provided to them (socialist) or to infringe on privacy and property rights when working (telemarketers in some cases).

[Sean Smith]

Personally? I think telemarketing is a criminal enterprise. Mass harassment through unsolicited phone calls ought to be illegal on the face of it.

:evil:

[cordex]

Sorry, the analogy doesn't hold up. When a business buys time from the network in order to try to sell things to me, they are subsidizing the service I'm receiving (television). If the telespammers paid the telephone company to provide me with free phone service, and if I chose to have that service, paid for by the spammers, then they would have every right to call me.
My analogy was services which you pay for (cable TV, satellite TV) that still have commercials. Commercials help subsidize the programming, but then again, so do you.

Telespammers do lower your costs indirectly, as their large-scale use helps fund hardware and infrastructure upgrades that would otherwise not be cost effective. Your minor usage isn't really all that profitable. If telemarketing companies lose the massive business from Telespammers, your costs are likely to go up, or a the very least not drop as quickly as they have been.
Again, the analogy doesn't hold up. The television doesn't summon me from whatever else I was doing to go watch a commercial that I then have the option of turning off. The television only beams commercials at me when I'm already watching it.
You can always turn your phones off. You make the choice not to, because the service that they provide is valuable to you. If something would make that service more valuable, then buy it. Don't legislate it.
A phone call, OTOH, could be from my daughter, calling with an emergency. Or from my mother, calling to tell me my father had a heart attack. Or from my husband, broken down by the side of the road and needing me to go pick him up. So I answer, and it's some waste of oxygen wanting to sell me siding for my house. BIG difference there. The television never turns itself on and summons me when I'm busy with something else, and even if it did, I would feel free to ignore it, as there would never be a possibility that what it was about to beam at me would be an emergency call from a loved one.
Again ... you pay for a service. That service allows anyone, anywhere to contact you. That service is not designed to prevent calls from people you don't want to speak with or to determine the nature of the phone call before it contacts you. If you want to add on to your service, that is between you and your phone company. It is not the business of the government, or any federal agency.
1) TV advertisers do not have the ability to activate your TV when you don't want it to be activated. Telemarketers do with your phone. If TV advertisers had that power, your TV would automatically turn on at all hours of the day and loudly spew ads at you -- even if you or your cholicky baby just got to sleep.
So unplug your phone when you want to sleep. Or get a model that you can turn the ringer off. If you choose to have a line that rings whenever someone wants to contact you, accept the results.
When everyone here signed up for cable TV, the rules of the road, as it was, were already set. You CONTRACTED to receive advertising in the form of commercials. In essence, they are solicited. You knew exactly what you were getting.
Not true.
Way back when, cable TV meant no (or at least, far fewer) commercial interruptions during programs. That has changed, just as Telespamming has increased.
The massive rise in telemarketing sales over the past 20 years, though, is quite different. No one, when they originally sign up for phone service, has the expectation of receiving 5, 10, or even 20 solicitation calls a day. That's because the telephone is a private means of communication, not mass media.
Unless otherwise contracted, the telephone is a private but open communications tool. In other words, it is private between the caller and the individual who answers the phone, but it is open in that it is specifically designed to allow anyone to be able to contact you via that line. That is what you CONTRACT to receive.

[Joe Demko]

Way back when, cable TV meant no (or at least, far fewer) commercial interruptions during programs. That has changed, just as Telespamming has increased.

No. My dad was involved in TV cable in its earliest days. All it meant was better reception than what was available with rabbit ears or an antenna. Since all they could offer was broadcast TV, there was no way they could have claimed few/no commercials. That idea didn't come along until the late 70's when HBO and other premium channels were born. You did and do pay directly for them in order to avoid the commercials.

[cordex]

No. My dad was involved in TV cable in its earliest days. All it meant was better reception than what was available with rabbit ears or an antenna. Since all they could offer was broadcast TV, there was no way they could have claimed few/no commercials. That idea didn't come along until the late 70's when HBO and other premium channels were born. You did and do pay directly for them in order to avoid the commercials.
My mistake.

[cuchulainn]

Unless otherwise contracted, the telephone is a private but open communications tool. In other words, it is private between the caller and the individual who answers the phone, but it is open in that it is specifically designed to allow anyone to be able to contact you via that line. That is what you CONTRACT to receive. You have the right to block whatever calls you wish.

So unplug your phone when you want to sleep. Or get a model that you can turn the ringer off. If you choose to have a line that rings whenever someone wants to contact you, accept the results. No, I CONTRACT to have 24-hour phone service for both personal convenience and FOR EMERGENCIES.

Your solution is that I give up the latter, if not both.

"Hey you want your kid to be able to call in an emergency while you're in your sick bed? Then accept the results and endure the 20 calls that keep you from sleeping!"

[BogBabe]

Again ... you pay for a service. That service allows anyone, anywhere to contact you. That service is not designed to prevent calls from people you don't want to speak with

"Is not designed" This phrase leapt out at me. As technology evolves, the "design" of telephone systems is changing. So far as I know, there's nothing innate about the concept of telephone service that requires that it be "designed" to allow anyone to call me. The "design" of telephone service is is not etched in stone anywhere.

If we buy your premise that telephone service is "designed" to allow anyone to call me, then caller ID and call blocking would not be permitted, because they are certainly intended to circumvent that "design."

And again, yes, I pay for the service. I have not given any telemarketer permission to use my service, that I pay for, to call me to try to sell me things.

That service is not designed to prevent calls from people you don't want to speak with or to determine the nature of the phone call before it contacts you. If you want to add on to your service, that is between you and your phone company. It is not the business of the government, or any federal agency.

Here again we have the notion that telephone service by its very nature requires that people I don't want to speak with have the right to call me on my telephone line that I pay for. We'll simply have to disagree about the eternal and unchanging permanence of telephone service design.

Believe me, if the phone company offered telephone service that did not permit telespammers to call me, I would gladly pay a premium for it. I'd love to have telephone service that allowed me to give a special code number to my friends and family, and only people who entered my code number would be able to put through calls to my line.

So unplug your phone when you want to sleep. Or get a model that you can turn the ringer off. If you choose to have a line that rings whenever someone wants to contact you, accept the results.

So you're admitting here that it's okay to circumvent the "design" of telephone service and prevent people from calling me, but only if I do it a less-than-acceptable way. Unfortunately, your solution isn't acceptable. Unplugging the phone or turning off the ringer would mean I can't get calls from people I do want to hear from -- such as my daughter calling in an emergency.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: The "do not call" list is a way for the government to help protect my property rights -- i.e., my right to control usage of the equipment and service that I pay for. Protecting property rights is one of the few legitimate functions of government.

Phone equipment that I buy is my property. I would also argue that the telephone service that I pay for is my property, as well. I don't think anyone would argue that if you subscribe to cable TV that you should be required to let your neighbor watch it, or that you should be required to share your Internet connection with everyone in your neighborhood, or that if you buy an extended warranty contract for your car that your neighbor should have a right to get his car fixed under your warranty. We generally believe that when you buy a service, you have the same rights to that service as you would to property that you own, and that other people do not have a right to use the service that you paid for. Why on earth should we treat telephone service any differently?

The do not call list should be applauded by everyone who believes in property rights.

[cordex]

You have the right to block whatever calls you wish.
Agreed. Not a point in contention.
So call up your phone provider and tell them which calls you wish to block.
No, I CONTRACT to have 24-hour phone service for both personal convenience and FOR EMERGENCIES.
I fail to see how this is a government matter. If you want to have 24 hour phone service accessable by anyone, expect to be called by anyone.
If you want a private, family/friends-only, emergency communications network and your current service doesn't provide this, go out and buy a service that gives you what you want.
Your solution is that I give up the latter, if not both.

"Hey you want your kid to be able to call in an emergency while you're in your sick bed? Then accept the results and endure the 20 calls that keep you from sleeping!"
Pretty much, yeah. Or purchase a system designed to keep unwanted callers out. Or (again) buy the service from your phone company.
Don't go running to Mommie.gov and say "These people are irritating me! Make them pay! I have the right not to be annoyed!"

[jimpeel]

Telemarket call blockers are available from Radio-Shack, et al for ten to nineteen dollars. When an autodialer calls and there is the pause while the computer transfers you to a person. It detects this and asks them to please terminate all communication to this number by placing you on the "do not call" list.

Again -- do you people out there, who are for this expansive government program, really need the government to do this for you? Are you for larger government or just plain lazy?

[BogBabe]

Again -- do you people out there, who are for this expansive government program, really need the government to do this for you? Are you for larger government or just plain lazy?

I'm in favor of the government finally getting around to performing one of its few legitimate roles -- that of protecting property rights.

The free market has not been able or willing to address the issue of my right to control usage of the service that I pay for. I suspect that the government-regulated monopoly position of phone companies has interfered with this. Telephone service has requirements imposed on it by the government that quite possibly/probably prevent phone companies from offering a private telephone service. Therefore, this particular government program is needed to solve the problem that was created by the government in the place.

Frankly, I'd prefer that phone service not be regulated or controlled by the government at all; there would almost certainly be companies springing up to offer private telephone networks that would only allow designated callers to make calls to me.

[jimpeel]

Well, the news just said that the House just passed legislation to reinstitute the program 412-8.

You may all go back to whatever you were doing before the nanny state was suspended for what must have been three agonizing days.

[Sean Smith]

Or more accurately, when the will of the population as a whole was temporarily usurped by the judiciary.

[TarpleyG]

How on earth does that translate into the right to use my phone service, that I pay for, and my telephone, that I bought, to interrupt me in the privacy of my own home to try to sell me something?
Well what about someone coming to your door to sell you something? That probably equates better than the TV commercial analogy I opted up before. You have no control, outside communities posting notices or a notice posted on your door, whether they bug you or not. You can simply ignore them (like not answering the phone) or open the door (like answering the phone. The peephole is your caller ID system in this case.

GT

[cordex]

Or more accurately, when the will of the population as a whole was temporarily usurped by the judiciary.
*laugh*
And if the population "wills" that you give up your guns .... this is justified how?
The free market has not been able or willing to address the issue of my right to control usage of the service that I pay for.
I contest this. Just because you haven't looked for, or found an alternative does not mean that the market was unable or unwilling to address it. Several existing alternatives have been offered in this thread. Some offered by phone companies, some hardware that you purchase and can control in that respect.

But as Jimpeel said, we now return you to your regularly scheduled nannystate.
"Fifty million Americans can't be wrong," Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana, said
"50,000,000 Americans can't be wrong" my unbecoming rear end.

[Oleg Volk]

Wonder if telemarketers ever call business numbers...like emergency ward switchboards? If so, what happens to them/their employer?

[cordex]

Wonder if telemarketers ever call business numbers...like emergency ward switchboards? If so, what happens to them/their employer?
At my company, such calls are handled in the same fashion that walk-in solicitors (who enter despite the "no soliciting" sign, mind you) are dealt with. If it is determined that the product or service they are trying to sell is of no value, they are politely informed that we are not interested and then either asked to leave or hung up on. But we aren't an emergency room either ...

[Sean Smith]

And if the population "wills" that you give up your guns .... this is justified how?

False analogy. Making it illegal for people to harass you is relevantly dissimilar on several levels from depriving the public of a clearly defined Constitutional right. For instance, there is no Constitutional right, expressed or implied, to harass millions of people a day to turn a buck. On the other hand, there is a clearly expressed Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Laws making harassment illegal are uncontroversial from a legal or Constitutional point of view. Yet somehow telemarketers harassing millions a day has become an accepted practice by default. The fact that that is changing because a vast majority of the U.S. population supports it is simply the way representative government is supposed to work.

[cordex]

Making it illegal for people to harass you is relevantly dissimilar on several levels from depriving the public of a clearly defined Constitutional right.
Undesired phone calls != harassment;
Undesired phone calls == simple annoyance;

"Will of the population" is not an indication of morality, nor justification for a law just because you happen to be amongst the majority.

To be clear, I hate telemarketing calls. I simply recognize that it is not the purpose of the government to control that aspect of commerce.

This is not a property rights issue. You do not own the telephone company. (unless you do, in which case this doesn't apply to you) If they are not providing the service you requested, deal with them.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Well what about someone coming to your door to sell you something? That probably equates better than the TV commercial analogy I opted up before. You have no control, outside communities posting notices or a notice posted on your door, whether they bug you or not."

Exactly right. And the "do not call list" IS that notice posted on my door.

[BogBabe]

Well what about someone coming to your door to sell you something? That probably equates better than the TV commercial analogy I opted up before. You have no control, outside communities posting notices or a notice posted on your door, whether they bug you or not. You can simply ignore them (like not answering the phone) or open the door (like answering the phone. The peephole is your caller ID system in this case.

As Neal Boortz said, the "do not call" list is a "no trespassing" sign on your phone service.

Anyway, the analogy still doesn't hold. With a peephole, I can actually see exactly who is ringing my bell. With caller ID, I can only see the number. What if it's my daughter calling from a hospital emergency room?

Telemarket call blockers are available from Radio-Shack, et al for ten to nineteen dollars. When an autodialer calls and there is the pause while the computer transfers you to a person. It detects this and asks them to please terminate all communication to this number by placing you on the "do not call" list.

Not a satisfactory solution. The call blocker still allows live telemarketers through, and I don't want to talk to them either.

Several existing alternatives have been offered in this thread. Some offered by phone companies, some hardware that you purchase and can control in that respect.

And all alternatives have deficiencies. Call blockers only block computerized calls. Turning off the phone blocks all calls, including emergencies. Caller ID? Emergency calls from family members may be dialed on a phone other than their regular number. Cordex suggested So call up your phone provider and tell them which calls you wish to block.. Uh, yeah, Cordex, that's a real practical solution.

jimpeel's solution was Just be polite and say "Please place me on your 'do not call' list" and hang up. Do you really need the government to do that for you? Uh, jim, you must realize that your ability to tell them that, and to expect them to abide by it, resulted from a government action? Apparently you accept the legitimacy of government requiring telemarketers to maintain a do-not-call list and to abide by your instructions to place your number on that list. Why do you support such a government program? For that matter, do you support the restrictions on telemarketers that they not call after a certain hour at night? Why would you deem these government actions acceptable but reject an actual, effective, do-not-call list that might actually work?

[mtnbkr]

Some people are so bitched up about govt intruding into their lives that they'll protest any action the govt takes, regardless of it's merit. A voluntary "do not call" list is not a sign of tyranny. I'll say it again, if you enjoy telemarketers, don't put your name on the list. As for me, I want them to become unemployed. I hate the pushy SOBs.

Chris

[cordex]

BogBabe,
Oh come now.

There are little black boxes you can plug into your telephone. They intercept the phone call and allow those who know a passcode to ring through. Those who don't have the code get to leave a message.

Didn't someone else mention that they had a service offered by their phone company that only allowed calls with a caller ID signal to come through, others had to identify themselves before it would even ring?

These are good solutions. Gov't goons are not.

And I fail to see how this is about property rights.

Some people are so bitched up about govt intruding into their lives that they'll protest any action the govt takes, regardless of it's merit.
I'm sorry, you want me to pay for your services and wonder why I'm concerned about it? This is not an area the gov't is justified in getting in to.

Anyone want to support the National Do Not Carry List?

[BogBabe]

There are little black boxes you can plug into your telephone. They intercept the phone call and allow those who know a passcode to ring through. Those who don't have the code get to leave a message.

Didn't someone else mention that they had a service offered by their phone company that only allowed calls with a caller ID signal to come through, others had to identify themselves before it would even ring?

And they all have deficiencies. With the little black box, you still have to wade through a gazillion hang-ups from telemarketing computers to get your real messages. And supposed it's the hospital calling -- they have my daughter in the ER, and she's unconscious? They don't have the passcode. I don't get the call until if/when I check my messages.

And the caller ID signal thing? So -- the telemarketers will identify themselves with some phony name, and they'll still get through. Or they'll gin up a fake caller ID signal. You'll still get interrupted 20 times a day.

Undesired phone calls != harassment;
Undesired phone calls == simple annoyance;

20 undesired phone calls per day == harassment. Particularly for those who work at night and sleep during the day, or mothers at home with sick children who are trying to sleep. I imagine that if telemarketers were allowed to call your home at all hours, and your sleep was interrupted 20 times a night, you might consider it harassment. Is it acceptable to allow the government to regulate what hours telemarketers are allowed to call? Maybe they should be allowed to call your house 24 hours a day around the clock. It's not the job of the government, after all, to regulate who uses your phone service to call you when you don't want to be called.

And I fail to see how this is about property rights.

That's exactly what it's about. It's about my ability to control the property (telephone and inside wiring) and service (telephone service) that I pay for. Is it not somewhat socialistic to suggest that anyone, anywhere, who thinks they need to use my phone service has a right to? Why would anyone who believes in private property rights be against the use of government to protect his control over the use of his property?

The do-not-call list is a completely appropriate use of government to protect property rights.

[cordex]

And they all have deficiencies
But this blessed gov't program doesn't?
Maybe they should be allowed to call your house 24 hours a day around the clock. It's not the job of the government, after all, to regulate who uses your phone service to call you when you don't want to be called.
*shrug* Not acceptable to me, so if it got to that point, I'd find or create a solution.

One that is not funded by taxpayers.
It's about my ability to control the property (telephone and inside wiring) and service (telephone service) that I pay for.
You have full control of any wiring and phones that you own. They can be turned off, unplugged or sold as scrap if you so desire.
This control does not extend beyond the wiring and equipment that you own.
Is it not somewhat socialistic to suggest that anyone, anywhere, who thinks they need to use my phone service has a right to?
No, it is not.
One more time.
You pay to receive and send phone calls. It is not "socialistic" in the least that someone wants to initiate a phone call on the line that you have chosen to make available to the outside world for that express purpose. Just because you don't want to talk to that person doesn't mean that they are a criminal.
If you want a private, family/friends-only, emergency communications network and your current service doesn't provide this, go out and buy a service that gives you what you want.
Why would anyone who believes in private property rights be against the use of government to protect his control over the use of his property?
Because phone service is not your property. It is a service.

[BogBabe]

You pay to receive and send phone calls.

I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and me. I pay to receive and send phone calls that I want to send and receive, not to have people calling me all day long trying to sell me stuff that I don't want.

Not acceptable to me, so if it got to that point, I'd find or create a solution.

One that is not funded by taxpayers.

So I guess you're equally against the government requirement that telemarketers maintain a do-not-call list and put your number on it when you instruct them to?

And I'm sure you've never instructed a telemarketer to put your number on their do-not-call list. After all, that's an area the government shouldn't be involved in, and so of course you're against that requirement and wouldn't dream of using the force of government to prevent telemarketers from calling you.

[Mike Irwin]

"Not true.
Way back when, cable TV meant no (or at least, far fewer) commercial interruptions during programs. That has changed, just as Telespamming has increased."


Cordex,

Please tell me where I said that cable TV was commercial free?

I didn't.

Also, do you know the origins of Cable TV?

Cable TV started as a way of getting NETWORK BROADCAST tv, that's right the stuff that flies through the air free of charge, to areas of the country that simply couldn't get it due to geographic constraints.

In fact, it started in Pennsylvania (Pennwire was, I believe, one of the first "cable TV" providers in the United States), and started out with every single commercial that broadcast TV included.

The later versions of cable TV with few or no commercials were, essentially, latecomers to the industry, and essentially already followed ANOTHER medium established by the Public Broadcasting System, which for many years had no commericals, only brief sponsorships.

At no time, however, to the best of my knowledge, were these early pay TV channels promoted as being commercial free.

Here's a website that discusses the history and development of cable TV. Note that "pay TV" in the form of speciality channels until 1972. And even then, those stations were NOT commercial free, because the promoted themselves and coming attractions.

[BogBabe]

f you want a private, family/friends-only, emergency communications network and your current service doesn't provide this, go out and buy a service that gives you what you want

Actually, I have. It's called a "cell phone." And thank heaven the telemarketers haven't invaded that! Hmmm... Are they prohibited by law from calling cell phones? Would you support a law prohibiting them from calling cell phones? If your answer is yes, you would support such a law on the grounds that cell phones are charged by the minute -- well, how about cell plans that offer unlimited night and weekend calling. Should telemarketers be allowed to call your cell phone if you have unlimited night and weekend calling?

Meanwhile, my fax machine on my landline is set to answer on the first ring, so any live telemarketers get an earful of fax machine tones. Computers merely hang up, and hopefully flag my number as a fax line so it doesn't get called again.

[Jeff White]

This is not an area the gov't is justified in getting in to.

I believe that this is exactly what the government is justified in getting into. I would say that the majority of telemarketing calls cross state lines. That makes them interstate commerce. IIRC, the Constitution says that Congress can make laws regarding interstate commerce. And no doubt about it, it's commerce, people crossing state lines electronically to sell goods and services is interstate commerce by anyone's definition.

Look at what the law does and doesn't do. It doesn't make it illegal for telemarketers to call someone. It only makes it illegal to call anyone who has voluntarily put their phone number on the list. No one forced me to put all the phone numbers (land line and cell) in the family on that list. If I had wanted to receive offers by phone, I had the option not to list the numbers.

I have the privacy manager feature on my phone. SBC Ameritech charges around $4.00 a month for it. And the telemarketers still get through. I still have to press a button on the phone telling them I don't take sales calls. For once the government has responded to the complaints of those it represents and taken action to address a problem. This is the way our government is supposed to work. If this was special interest politics it would be different but that would make the anti-telemarketers are the largest special interest group in the country with 50 million members.

Jeff

[cordex]

I guess that's a fundamental difference between you and me. I pay to receive and send phone calls that I want to send and receive, not to have people calling me all day long trying to sell me stuff that I don't want.
I'm sorry ma'am, but that is not the way standard phone service works. You pay for calls made from your home, and you pay to allow your phone to receive calls made to it. I highly doubt that your contract with the phone company involves "want to get" or "desire to be called" or "intended to receive". If it does, then your problem lies with their not following up on the contract and should be pursued on those grounds.
So I guess you're equally against the government requirement that telemarketers maintain a do-not-call list and put your number on it when you instruct them to?
I don't see how it is the government's business.
But since they already have this requirement, why go further?
And I'm sure you've never instructed a telemarketer to put your number on their do-not-call list.
Personally, no. I have not done this. You see, I have no problem just hanging up on them. Others in my household have, I'm sure.
After all, that's an area the government shouldn't be involved in, and so of course you're against that requirement and wouldn't dream of using the force of government to prevent telemarketers from calling you.
Yup.
Would you support a law prohibiting them from calling cell phones?
No ma'am.

Mike, I was wrong about that and said as much. I wasn't thinking.

[cordex]

I would say that the majority of telemarketing calls cross state lines. That makes them interstate commerce. IIRC, the Constitution says that Congress can make laws regarding interstate commerce. And no doubt about it, it's commerce, people crossing state lines electronically to sell goods and services is interstate commerce by anyone's definition.
This is used as justification for any action by the government.
Much of the food I've bought to eat was transported over state lines. Does that make my diet government business?

[Mike Irwin]

"You have the right to block whatever calls you wish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Agreed. Not a point in contention.
So call up your phone provider and tell them which calls you wish to block."

There's the rub now, isn't it.

Most of these telemarketers MASK their numbers so that they can't be blocked, and you can't see who the calls is from, or from where it is originating.

Yes, you can pay for an extra feature every month that will block such numbers, but why should you have to?

By participating in the National Do Not Call list, which as others have mentioned is an extension of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, and given the deregulation of the phone industry over the past 20 years, a national list is the most logical avenue.

Unless we want to pass new laws (which I'm personally in favor of), mandating that telemarketers MUST have numbers that show on caller ID.


"Does that make my diet government business?"

It very well may, yes, if the products you use in your diet are found to be unsafe. It also makes your diet government business if a telemarketer or other marketer begins to promote the diet as being "more" than just a diet...

"Cures cancer! Regenerates hair! Increases the size of your penis! Makes you smarter! Gives you superhuman strength!" blah blah blah blah.

[cuchulainn]

Because phone service is not your property. It is a service.Actually, from a legal standpoint, you do have property rights over non-owned services, especially those that involve physical items -- be it phone service, a rented apartment or a leased car.Just because you don't want to talk to that person doesn't mean that they are a criminal.What about when a group of them ACTIVELY circumvent all attempts to stop them from calling -- not just a little, but a lot -- forcing me to buy increasingly expensive and complex "fences" to keep them out.

I don't own the road in front of my house, but you can be sure I'd support government intervention if I and all my neighbors faced 20 door-to-door salement a day ACTIVELY attempting to CIRCUMVENT our increasingly expensive and complex fences -- even if we were just renting the "service" of apartments.

There's a reason that telemarketers don't show their numbers. So that you cannot call the phone company to block the calls.

There's a reason that telemarketers are getting auto dialers that work differently than the ones that the Radio Shack boxes block. So that you cannot block the calls.

[Jeff White]

This is used as justification for any action by the government.
Much of the food I've bought to eat was transported over state lines. Does that make my diet government business?

No it doesn't make your diet anyone's business but your own. But the government can and should have laws concerning weights and measures (an Illinois pound should be the same as an Indiana pound, although if Daley could figure a way to get it, it would be less after the Chicago machine got it's cut). Perhaps you'd approve of disbanding the FDA and firing all the Dept. of Agriculture inspectors? After all it's none of the government's business if there is an outbreak of botulism or e-coli. Think how that interferes with business. Caveat Emptor right?

I'm sorry my friend I do believe that there is room for limited regulation of things like that. the founders thought so to. The Interstate Commerce Clause is not exactly a new thing. I'll grant you that it's been misused in the past, but I believe this is exactly the kind of use for it the founders envisioned.

Bogbabe, you're right about the telemarkerters using number generating devices to get past the privacy manager features. I get a lot of call wringing through and the caller ID shows an 800 or 866 number that isn't valid if you try to call it back. It's a technology war. For every measure we take to avoid their calls they come up with a countermeasure. Telemarketing musty be pretty lucrative if they keep spending money on electronic devices to get past the devices I pay for to ensure my privacy.

Jeff

[tyme]

"Anyone want to support the National Do Not Carry List?"

Huh? What do you even mean by such a list, or have you thought about it at all? The analogy would suggest a list of people who don't want others to carry firearms. But that doesn't make any sense, because the act of carrying a firearm responsibly isn't directed at anyone, and hence it doesn't make any sense for anyone in particular to put their name on such a list. Also, one affects what you can do to people in their homes or through their cellphones, while the other affects what I can do in public even though it doesn't affect anyone else.

Telemarketing is directed at particular people (well, everyone, but particular people at any point in time). Also, what's allowable in public is not reasonable when directed at me at home. I expect people who call me to have some reason for doing so if I don't know them. I don't know anyone who wants random people calling them for commercial purposes.

[Mike Irwin]

Hey MTNBKR,

That offer is still open for another 22 minutes!

Act now! You can't live without it!

:D

[BogBabe]

'm sorry ma'am, but that is not the way standard phone service works. You pay for calls made from your home, and you pay to allow your phone to receive calls made to it. I highly doubt that your contract with the phone company involves "want to get" or "desire to be called" or "intended to receive". If it does, then your problem lies with their not following up on the contract and should be pursued on those grounds.

Standard phone service works the way it does exactly because the government imposed a regulated monopoly model on it. Telephone companies are classified as common carriers and as such are required by law to make their service open and available to everyone, including telemarketers. Thanks to the government, it's not legal for a phone company to offer a private telephone network that allows me to control the usage of my equipment and service. When telephone service is completely de-regulated and telephone companies are permitted to offer such services, I'll get my phone service from a company that provides it.

Your assertion that "that's the way phone service works" is based on the flawed regulatory model established by the government in the first place. Do you support the regulatory model that requires telephone companies to make their service universally available, including to telemarketers? Would you support a reform and de-regulation of the telephone industry so that telephone companies could offer set up private telephone networks that would be closed to telemarketers?

[cordex]

By participating in the National Do Not Call list, which as others have mentioned is an extension of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution
Oh! Well, if someone can read something as being allowed the ICC, well then I'll happily accept it!
That's why I'm so happy about the NFA.
Yes, you can pay for an extra feature every month that will block such numbers, but why should you have to?
You don't have to.
You can always hang up on them.
If you don't want to do that, then you can pay to avoid it. I don't agree with the "I want more services, but I don't want to pay for them." bit.
Actually, from a legal standpoint, you do have property rights over non-owned services, especially those that involve physical items -- be it phone service, a rented apartment or a leased car.
Successful completion of a call is not a violation of the rights associated to purchasing telephone service.
I'm sorry my friend I do believe that there is room for limited regulation of things like that. the founders thought so to. The Interstate Commerce Clause is not exactly a new thing. I'll grant you that it's been misused in the past, but I believe this is exactly the kind of use for it the founders envisioned.
I'm just not sure that it is.
It doesn't protect people, it just helps them avoid annoyance. That is not a government job.

Tyme,
Huh? What do you even mean by such a list, or have you thought about it at all?
I proposed it earlier in the thread.
If someone proposed a "National Do Not Carry List", where companies and property owners would just have to put their name on a list and anyone who carried a handgun on their property would immediately be fined $11,000 .... how well would that go over? It is unquestionably their right to refuse to allow you to carry a weapon on their property, isn't it? Well why shouldn't they be allowed to put up a giant, centralized "Do not carry!" sign?

I can tell I'm just the irritating minority here. Obviously the vast majority loves increased government interference when it suits them, quotes the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suits them and is happy to tell everyone else to pay for the services that they want when it suits them. Just don't forget what you support.

[mtnbkr]

Would you support a law prohibiting them from calling cell phones?

No ma'am.


So you'd allow them to call you at your expense?

Mike,

I told ya, I already have enough siding. It's even in the shape of a house.


Chris

[Jeff White]

Obviously the vast majority loves increased government interference when it suits them, quotes the Interstate Commerce Clause when it suits them and is happy to tell everyone else to pay for the services that they want when it suits them. Just don't forget what you support.

cordex,

Are you for total abolition of all govenment? I started a thread here a couple months ago asking what everyone wanted from government. I'll have to go back and read it again, but I don't recall you saying you were for NO government. If I'm wrong, I apologize. I have already acknowledged that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused in the past, but is that any reason NOT to use it for legitimate purposes?

Jeff

[Mike Irwin]

"Oh! Well, if someone can read something as being allowed the ICC, well then I'll happily accept it!
That's why I'm so happy about the NFA."


Ah, so in other words, even if it's a power mandated to the Government by the Constitution, as opposed to one seized by the Government by proxy, you still don't want any part of it.

So you're anti-government/anti-Constitution?


"You don't have to.
You can always hang up on them."

I don't want the calls coming in in the first place.

I have the right to hang a sign on my door that says "Private Property, No Trespassers," the NDNCL gives the telephonic equivilent of that.


You keep claiming that this is somehow "government interference in our daily lives."

It's NOT.

What is interference are telemarketers.

Level with us. Are you a telemarketer?

[cuchulainn]

Successful completion of a call is not a violation of the rights associated to purchasing telephone service. It is when they ACTIVELY seek more complex technology to thwart the fences I put up to stop them from calling. Engaging in a technology war with me to worm past my defenses is a violation of my property rights.

This is NOT Joe benignly completing a call. This is somone KNOWINGLY and REPEATEDLY getting new technology and new strategies to thwart people's property defenses.

Their GOAL is to VIOLATE those property defenses.

[jimpeel]

The government instituted Seizure and Forfeiture laws that we were assured would only be used against drug dealers. That law has been expanded exponentially to include people's property where trespassers use drugs without their knowledge or consent.

The government instituted R.I.C.O. statutes that we were assured would only be used against crime syndicates. That law has been expanded exponentially to include abortion protesters and others.

The government instituted T.H.E.P.A.T.R.I.O.T.A.C.T. that we were assured would only be used against non-citizen terrorists. That law has been expanded to include American citizens who are currently being held incommunicado and without legal counsel.

The government instituted a "do not call" list that we were assured ...

[jimpeel]

For those who claim privacy, personal property, paid services, etc.; what about those annoying pop-up ads on your computer. Aren't they invading your property and privacy?

Will you cry out to the government to "Pleeeeeze stop those nasty ads Mr. Government man! I just can't stand them any more!"; or will you download a copy of a free pop-up blocker?

Oh, wait, that would take some effort on your part. So let me for a moment pretend to be the all benevolent government and do the work for you by posting the link. http://www.tucows.com/preview/304491.html .

I'm sorry I can't be there to push the mouse buttons for you but, as you all know, we can't be everywhere at once.

[cuchulainn]

For those who claim privacy, personal property, paid services, etc.; what about those annoying pop-up ads on your computer. Aren't they invading your property and privacy?

Will you cry out to the government to "Pleeeeeze stop those nasty ads Mr. Government man! I just can't stand them any more!"; or will you download a copy of a free pop-up blocker?

False analogy.

The popup ads come when you visit certain websites -- similar to TV commercials.

What telemarketers do would be similar to KNOWINGLY getting new technology to WORM PAST your FIREWALLS so as to force ads onto you while you were working on, say, an Excel spreadsheet.

+++
And BTW the slippery slope argument is a classic logical fallacy.

...and so are the slightly veiled ad hominem implications of laziness.

[mtnbkr]

That doesn't fit our discussion. For you to get a popup, you must go to a site that uses them. Telemarketers call you simply because you have a phone and phone number.

Chris

[cordex]

Level with us. Are you a telemarketer
Nope.
To be perfectly frank, my company does do outbound calling, but only in a patient satisfaction survey role for hospitals (some here might find that irritating too, though). Zero telemarketing. We sell nothing to the people our call center contacts, nor have we ever. Just survey them about hospital visits. To my knowledge, we would remain unaffected by this law, as our calls are noncommercial.
Ah, so in other words, even if it's a power mandated to the Government by the Constitution, as opposed to one seized by the Government by proxy, you still don't want any part of it.
Will you concede (as Mr. White has) that the ICC has been abused?
If so, then you agree that Constitutional authority can be abused, and surely you don't support that abuse. Does that make you anti-Constitution?
I don't want the calls coming in in the first place.
And this is Uncle Sam's problem ... why?
I have already acknowledged that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused in the past, but is that any reason NOT to use it for legitimate purposes?
If the issue were of resolving broken contracts, protecting the lives of Americans or something else, I might be with you. It isn't. It is about people who are too lazy to pick up and subsequently put down a phone, or too cheap to seek one of the solutions that is currently on the market, or unable to create their own solution.
Their GOAL is to VIOLATE those property defences.
So "there oughta be a law", right?

Oh well. I'm obviously not changing any minds. This is one of the battles (like welfare, or medicare or any other popular bread/circus programs) that is hard to argue with those that support it.

[cuchulainn]

So "there oughta be a law", right? Given that they engage in the telephone equivalent of hacking? Yes.too cheap to seek one of the solutions that is currently on the market The telemarketers KNOWINGLY "hack" past those solutions.Oh well. I'm obviously not changing any minds. This is one of the battles (like welfare, or medicare or any other popular bread/circus programs) that is hard to argue with those that support it. Thinly veiled ad hominem attack.

[Futo Inu]

Lookit.

The court decision was correct. The agency acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of authority granted to it by Congress) when it made the no-call list.

If Congress wants to pass a no-call list law, then by all means, pass the damn thing - it sure seems to have popular support - and if they feel like it, give the authority to FTC to implement the details. But as of now, the FTC does not have authority to do what they did. This is no different from the BATFE trying to make rules banning guns which they say are unsafe (as CPHV et al would like them to).

It is the height of hypocrisy and disingenouity for DiFi to get on the teevee yesterday and deride this decision (so what's new?) when it's HER political body (the Congress) that needs to get off it's azz and pass it, if that's what their constituents want, NOT to rely on an agency (the FTC) to overstep their legal bounds by making law - that's not what FTC is there for - they exist to regulate the airways and issue licenses to use frequencies, etc. Their job is not to pass substantive law on a broad policy issue like this.

As far as such a rule being unconstitutional, that argument is for another day - I'm all for freedom of commercial speech, but I don't think it's unconst. to create a no-call list (but it may be - haven't really looked at it). I sure hope it's not unconst., because I'd like to string up telemarketers by their ears personally.

BTW, tangentially, when I cancelled my home landline phone service a year or so ago, they asked my why. Even though the reason was primarily to save money, and just use my mobile phone, I told them that the reason was because of their $1.50 per month charge which I had been paying in order to NOT be listed in all the phone directories (in order to keep my number non-public). That was one part of it, and I'm glad I let them know about - glad they asked. :)

[cuchulainn]

The court decision was correct. The agency acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of authority granted to it by Congress) when it made the no-call list. Actually, I agree, and thus I support the current legislative approach.

[XLMiguel]

So move teh database to the FCC.

I don't buy stuff over the phone, never have, never will. I live in one of the more affluent and most consumption-oriented areeas of the country. There is nothing they have that I can't get cheaper locally, if I want to. I don't need the annoyance or invasion of privacy. They don't have the right to bother me.

Here's the number of the moronic Federal judge who decided that the 50 million people who had already signed up on the national "Do Not Call List" actually needed to be called by a telemarketer during the dinner hour. Thus, he ruled that the "Do Not Call List" could not go in to effect on October 1.

You might want to call his office in Oklahoma City exercise your 1st Amendment rights to express your opinion to a public official.

Judge Lee R. West

405-609-5140 (office number)