|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cellular phones topics > October 2005 > 'Do Not Call List': No longer implicit for cell phones?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
'Do Not Call List': No longer implicit for cell phones?
|
|
| (PeteCresswell) 2005-10-07, 5:48 pm |
| Somebody just sent me one of those emails that gets passed from person-to-person
(so right away, it's suspect...)...
What it claims is that cell phones will soon be fair game for telemarketers if
the phone's number is not on the no-call list.
Any truth to this? ... not that it matters to me bc all my phones are on the
list... but if it's true, it says something about our elected representatives...
--
PeteCresswell
| |
|
| "(PeteCresswell)"
> Somebody just sent me one of those emails that gets passed from
person-to- person
> (so right away, it's suspect...)...
>
> What it claims is that cell phones will soon be fair game for
telemarketers if
> the phone's number is not on the no-call list.
>
> Any truth to this? ... not that it matters to me bc all my phones are on
the
> list... but if it's true, it says something about our elected
representatives...
It very much depends on what coutry we are talking about.
We already have such a list in our country.
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-10-07, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:25:52 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)"
<a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote:
>Somebody just sent me one of those emails that gets passed from person-to-person
>(so right away, it's suspect...)...
>
>What it claims is that cell phones will soon be fair game for telemarketers if
>the phone's number is not on the no-call list.
>
>Any truth to this? ... not that it matters to me bc all my phones are on the
>list... but if it's true, it says something about our elected representatives...
No, there's no real truth to this. The only people who have to be
worried about that in the U.S. are people who ported over landline
numbers to cellphones. Some RBOCs, including Verizon, did and maybe
still do allow you to do that.
| |
| Brian Beuchaw 2005-10-07, 5:48 pm |
| Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:25:52 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)"
> <a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote:
>
>
> No, there's no real truth to this. The only people who have to be
> worried about that in the U.S. are people who ported over landline
> numbers to cellphones. Some RBOCs, including Verizon, did and maybe
> still do allow you to do that.
And you can always check www.snopes.com for the validity of this kind of
crap.
brian
--
If you want to reply to this message by mail, you will
have to change the reply address to beuchaw@beuchaw.net
| |
| John S. 2005-10-07, 11:48 pm |
|
"(PeteCresswell)" <a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote in message
news:u8mdk15583oih63
2p5l0ul9h9slu0lnqqd@
4ax.com...
> What it claims is that cell phones will soon be fair game for
> telemarketers if
> the phone's number is not on the no-call list.
>
> Any truth to this?
Nope
| |
| DevilsPGD 2005-10-08, 2:48 am |
| In message < 66edk19drtri643t7icc
v1pufe0h7q0fbs@4ax.com> Cyrus Afzali
<pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
>The only people who have to be
>worried about that in the U.S. are people who ported over landline
>numbers to cellphones. Some RBOCs, including Verizon, did and maybe
>still do allow you to do that.
Actually, it's the responsibility of the caller to avoid cell phones,
it's not the recipient's job to notify them.
As I understand it, exactly how that is done isn't clearly and legally
defined as the telcos don't tell anybody which numbers are ported and
which aren't, but that doesn't relieve the telemarketer of their
obligations.
--
I should have gotten off in crackton
-- Lisa
| |
| Steve Sobol 2005-10-08, 2:48 am |
| Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> No, there's no real truth to this. The only people who have to be
> worried about that in the U.S. are people who ported over landline
> numbers to cellphones. Some RBOCs, including Verizon, did and maybe
> still do allow you to do that.
They're required to allow you to do that. The RBOC's will drag their feet,
of course.
--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
| |
| Joe Gazda 2005-10-13, 5:48 pm |
| Politicans made sure that they were excluded from the "do not call list".
They can call any number and try to sell themselves to the public and it's
perfectly legal. go to www.donotcall.gov for all the facts.
"(PeteCresswell)" <a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote in message
news:u8mdk15583oih63
2p5l0ul9h9slu0lnqqd@
4ax.com...
> Somebody just sent me one of those emails that gets passed from
> person-to-person
> (so right away, it's suspect...)...
>
> What it claims is that cell phones will soon be fair game for
> telemarketers if
> the phone's number is not on the no-call list.
>
> Any truth to this? ... not that it matters to me bc all my phones are on
> the
> list... but if it's true, it says something about our elected
> representatives...
> --
> PeteCresswell
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2005-10-13, 11:48 pm |
| Per Joe Gazda:
>Politicans made sure that they were excluded from the "do not call list".
>They can call any number and try to sell themselves to the public and it's
>perfectly legal. go to www.donotcall.gov for all the facts.
It never ceases to amaze me that charities, political orgs, and various other
people actually call without checking the no-call list - as if I, having taken
the trouble to get on the no-call list, would be any less irritated just because
they managed to pay somebody off to get them excepted.
The ones that *really* burn me are the recorded commercials for politicians.
Next election, maybe I'll keep a tally sheet by the phone: the org that inflicts
the fewest recordings on me gets my vote.
You'd think that calls to people on the list would be much, much less productive
than calls to other people.
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2005-10-13, 11:48 pm |
| On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:11:00 -0700, "(PeteCresswell)"
<a@b.c.invalid.USA> wrote:
>Per Joe Gazda:
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that charities, political orgs, and various other
>people actually call without checking the no-call list - as if I, having taken
>the trouble to get on the no-call list, would be any less irritated just because
>they managed to pay somebody off to get them excepted.
If they're structed as a non-profit organization, they are exempt.
|
|
|
|
|