Cingular cell phone service - Anyone else get TXT Message Spam from Cingular lately?

Author

Anyone else get TXT Message Spam from Cingular lately?

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging
turned off.

Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg

John Navas

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:32:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< lgk3v2pigvo1kht5f86g
vni2g0jbl1mfek@4ax.com>:

>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging
>turned off.
>
>Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg

None here.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:28:32 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:32:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< lgk3v2pigvo1kht5f86g
vni2g0jbl1mfek@4ax.com>:
>
>
>None here.

Likely because you currently allow txt messages.

They arrogant bast_rds at Cingular say "We didnt send SPAM, we sent an
administreative message"

I said "Were you trying to sell me something extra"

"Yes"

"Then its SPAM"

=================

You now have to request that your account be modified not to receive
"Administrative txt messages"; next time they'll have yet another name
for it so they can violate their own Privacy Rules.

Kurt

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

Mary

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:32:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:

>Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging
>turned off.
>
>Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg

If you have registered for OLAM there is a specific section for how
they can contact you for marketing. You may well have told them that
text messaging from them was OK. Under any circumstances just uncheck
the box.

I have received a couple of these messages. They all start off with
the phrase "Cingular Free Message" or something like that. That means
you are not paying from them. All of them also said that to stop them
sinply reply "STOP". I would assume that that message is also free.

Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and
that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say
no.

So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care
of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

In article < sr54v21eok48ahgtci38
88ag75nq2ip557@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:28:32 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Likely because you currently allow txt messages.
>
> They arrogant bast_rds at Cingular say "We didnt send SPAM, we sent an
> administreative message"
>
> I said "Were you trying to sell me something extra"
>
> "Yes"
>
> "Then its SPAM"

Happens to me all the time, and yes, I have text messaging turned OFF
for all my lines.

You will never, ever hear John Navas acknowledge that something like
this ever happened to him. It's no doubt happened--Cingular sends
"administrative" spam for all sorts of things--but the cognitive
dissonance that would set up in Navas's brain would cause it to explode.

Therefore, the fuse kicks in and it's like he never even saw the matter
happen.

Navas is excellent at innocently claiming that none of these things ever
happen to him.

John Navas

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:07:35 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
<elmop-D6C409. 09073510032007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com>:

>In article < sr54v21eok48ahgtci38
88ag75nq2ip557@4ax.com>,
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Happens to me all the time, and yes, I have text messaging turned OFF
>for all my lines.
>
>You will never, ever hear John Navas acknowledge that something like
>this ever happened to him. It's no doubt happened--

Nope, wrong yet again.

>Cingular sends
>"administrative" spam for all sorts of things--but the cognitive
>dissonance that would set up in Navas's brain would cause it to explode.

The only message Cingular has sent me in months was when I got my new 3G
SIM for my new Moto RAZR V3xx.

>Therefore, the fuse kicks in and it's like he never even saw the matter
>happen.
>
>Navas is excellent at innocently claiming that none of these things ever
>happen to him.

Only in your childish dreams. Grow up.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-03-10, 10:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:05:06 -0500, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote in
< 7ce5v2d58poki2lh64fq
0cf9jcagdnrlvp@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:32:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>If you have registered for OLAM there is a specific section for how
>they can contact you for marketing. You may well have told them that
>text messaging from them was OK. Under any circumstances just uncheck
>the box.
>
>I have received a couple of these messages. They all start off with
>the phrase "Cingular Free Message" or something like that. That means
>you are not paying from them. All of them also said that to stop them
>sinply reply "STOP". I would assume that that message is also free.
>
>Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and
>that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say
>no.
>
>So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care
>of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop.

Well said.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-10, 12:33 pm

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:05:06 -0500, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:32:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>If you have registered for OLAM

Nope

> there is a specific section for how
>they can contact you for marketing. You may well have told them that
>text messaging from them was OK. Under any circumstances just uncheck
>the box.
>
>I have received a couple of these messages. They all start off with
>the phrase "Cingular Free Message" or something like that. That means
>you are not paying from them. All of them also said that to stop them
>sinply reply "STOP". I would assume that that message is also free.

Yesterday's SPAM had no such option.
>
>Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and
>that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say
>no.

I had 3 years ago. Txt messaging was disabled on my account,
but now SPAM is redefined as "Administrative Message".
>
>So - just say "NO" or in this case "STOP" and all should be taken care
>of. If only the true spam we get as e-mail were so easy to stop.

I called in and asked not to received "Administrative Messages"
that may work till they play another semantic word game
and call SPAM something else again.

clifto

2007-03-10, 12:33 pm

Mary wrote:
> Remember also that you have business relationship with Cingular and
> that they have a right to contact you with sales pitches UNTIL you say
> no.

One of the following is true:

1. One day I woke up, tripped over my slippers, and went tumbling into the
Do Not Call List. There's no way out, I'm trapped forever.
2. I went out of my way to find out about the Do Not Call List, made a
special effort to contact the list, and deliberately entered my phone
number, in order to tell telemarketers not to contact me by phone.

If the first is true, you may have a valid point. If the second is true,
then anyone who telemarkets to me by phone is going out of his way to
countermand my wishes. Whether that entity has a right to do so is
irrelevant.

You sound like someone who thinks it's okay to walk up and start beating
another person until and unless they say "uncle". You could make a really
good living walking up to private conversations and giving those involved
a good sales pitch in the middle of their chat.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

Scott

2007-03-10, 12:33 pm

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
news:8q7bc4-7pg.ln1@remote.clifto.com:

> Mary wrote:
>
> One of the following is true:
>
> 1. One day I woke up, tripped over my slippers, and went tumbling into
> the Do Not Call List. There's no way out, I'm trapped forever.
> 2. I went out of my way to find out about the Do Not Call List, made a
> special effort to contact the list, and deliberately entered my phone
> number, in order to tell telemarketers not to contact me by phone.
>
> If the first is true, you may have a valid point. If the second is
> true, then anyone who telemarkets to me by phone is going out of his
> way to countermand my wishes. Whether that entity has a right to do so
> is irrelevant.
>

Except that the law was not written that way. Your intended outcome would
not supercede the regulation. The law allows exceptions- the do-not-call
list is not the end all, be all that many people wrongly think it is.

Mary

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:33:07 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:05:06 -0500, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nope
>
>
>
>Yesterday's SPAM had no such option.

If yesterday's message did not have option described above then it
probably wasn't from Cingular. The few that I have received from
Cingular were very clear in their origin.

If it wasn't from Cingular then call and XXXXX like hell at them. If
enough people who get true spam call and do this to all of the
carriers then maybe they'll decide they should do something about it.

Good luck

>
>
>I had 3 years ago. Txt messaging was disabled on my account,
>but now SPAM is redefined as "Administrative Message".
>
>
>I called in and asked not to received "Administrative Messages"
>that may work till they play another semantic word game
>and call SPAM something else again.

Mary

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:51:36 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mary wrote:
>
>One of the following is true:
>
>1. One day I woke up, tripped over my slippers, and went tumbling into the
>Do Not Call List. There's no way out, I'm trapped forever.
>2. I went out of my way to find out about the Do Not Call List, made a
>special effort to contact the list, and deliberately entered my phone
>number, in order to tell telemarketers not to contact me by phone.
>
>If the first is true, you may have a valid point. If the second is true,
>then anyone who telemarkets to me by phone is going out of his way to
>countermand my wishes. Whether that entity has a right to do so is
>irrelevant.
>
>You sound like someone who thinks it's okay to walk up and start beating
>another person until and unless they say "uncle". You could make a really
>good living walking up to private conversations and giving those involved
>a good sales pitch in the middle of their chat.

Did you flunk reading comprehension in school. I said only that if the
message was from Cingular then it was easy to stop. As far as saying I
think it is OK to just go up and start beating somebody then I invite
you to come up to me and even intimate that you are going to do
something. I can assure you that my knee will end up causing you to
speak with a higher pitched voice than mine LOL. Have a great day.

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:39:21 -0500, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:33:07 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>If yesterday's message did not have option described above then it
>probably wasn't from Cingular. The few that I have received from
>Cingular were very clear in their origin.
>
>If it wasn't from Cingular then call and XXXXX like hell at them. If
>enough people who get true spam call and do this to all of the
>carriers then maybe they'll decide they should do something about it.
>

It most definitely was form Cingular, and they proudly proclaimed
their SPAM as an "Administrative mnessage", but it had no opt out
message in it.

[color=darkred]
>Good luck
>

clifto

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

Scott wrote:
> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Except that the law was not written that way. Your intended outcome would
> not supercede the regulation. The law allows exceptions- the do-not-call
> list is not the end all, be all that many people wrongly think it is.

You may have missed my last sentence.

The fact that I am able to fart loudly in church, and probably not even
get kicked out for it, doesn't mean it's not excessively annoying and
downright rude. The same goes for the telesleaze.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

Scott

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
news:l8qbc4-rgi.ln1@remote.clifto.com:

> Scott wrote:
>
> You may have missed my last sentence.
>
> The fact that I am able to fart loudly in church, and probably not
> even get kicked out for it, doesn't mean it's not excessively annoying
> and downright rude. The same goes for the telesleaze.
>

Understood, but legislating annoying and rude behavior would require
another new arm of the government to handle the volume.

clifto

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

Mary wrote:
> Did you flunk reading comprehension in school.

All right, since you can't comprehend what I wrote, we'll settle on the
ad-hominems instead. Unlike you, I do remember the rules of punctuation
they taught me in second grade, and third grade, and fourth grade, and
fifth grade, and sixth grade, and so on for many years. Specifically,
I remember the rule that says that one punctuates a question with a
question mark.

Just a little reminder to go back and actually pass second grade.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

Kurt

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my
Treo was updated for daylight savings time.
Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Mary

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:46:24 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
wrote:

>I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my
>Treo was updated for daylight savings time.
>Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet.

One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this
type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my
phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out.

Mary

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:15:51 -0600, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mary wrote:
>
>All right, since you can't comprehend what I wrote, we'll settle on the
>ad-hominems instead. Unlike you, I do remember the rules of punctuation
>they taught me in second grade, and third grade, and fourth grade, and
>fifth grade, and sixth grade, and so on for many years. Specifically,
>I remember the rule that says that one punctuates a question with a
>question mark.
>
>Just a little reminder to go back and actually pass second grade.

Good one!

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-11, 7:33 am

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:00 -0400, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:46:24 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this
>type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my
>phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out.

This is quite DIFFERENT from the SPAM I received by text message which
only wanted to sell txt and photo messaging, and had no
way listed to stop future such SPAM, and was sent to a cell phone
where txt messaging had been disabled (and was still showing as such
in Cingular's records). You sure are working
hard to defend the undefendable.

John Navas

2007-03-11, 10:33 am

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:47:48 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< duq7v29vsu07n8o9g695
3mcgcg4rfjdlou@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:39:00 -0400, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

>
>This is quite DIFFERENT from the SPAM I received by text message which
>only wanted to sell txt and photo messaging, and had no
>way listed to stop future such SPAM, and was sent to a cell phone
>where txt messaging had been disabled (and was still showing as such
>in Cingular's records). You sure are working
>hard to defend the undefendable.

No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite
how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly
accepted definition. You have an existing business relationship with
Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact
you regarding that business relationship. If you don't want such
communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else. If
you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And
think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

PCs Rule

2007-03-11, 12:33 pm

"John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:i748v211kkj2caa
da5v9t7a8145ipo8jcs@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:47:48 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> < duq7v29vsu07n8o9g695
3mcgcg4rfjdlou@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
> No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite
> how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly
> accepted definition. You have an existing business relationship with
> Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact
> you regarding that business relationship. If you don't want such
> communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else. If
> you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And
> think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor.
>
It's like the Do-Not-Call registry. Anyone you currently do business with
can still call you, even though you're on the do-not-call list.

Kevin Weaver

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

PCs Rule wrote:
> "John Navas" < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:i748v211kkj2caa
da5v9t7a8145ipo8jcs@
4ax.com...
> It's like the Do-Not-Call registry. Anyone you currently do business with
> can still call you, even though you're on the do-not-call list.
>
>
The do not call list is a joke. SBC told me there is no way to enforce
it. All they offered to do was change my number. Which is no way the
fault of SBC. I was getting fax machine tones in my ear at all hours of
the day and night.

My number is unlisted. But I found out that 5 years ago that my number
was a fax machine number. :(

B. Peg

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

< karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote in message
news:lgk3v2pigvo1kht
5f86gvni2g0jbl1mfek@
4ax.com...
> Particularly annoying since my account shows as having txt messaging
> turned off.
>
> Received this spam today suggesting I go to cingular.com/msg

Mine has some "wappush" (text spam) buried in the message and it is from
some Yahoo! ad ingrate. The words Cingular appear so you thinik it from
them, but it isn't on mine. If you click to find out or to unsubscribe, it
calls the ingrate and then you get free phone text spam you pay for life.
Don't reply to the message if you see wappush. You've been warned!

B~

Mary

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

SNIP

>The do not call list is a joke. SBC told me there is no way to enforce
>it. All they offered to do was change my number. Which is no way the
>fault of SBC. I was getting fax machine tones in my ear at all hours of
>the day and night.
>
>My number is unlisted. But I found out that 5 years ago that my number
>was a fax machine number. :(

I think it is interesting how different people have had different
results with the Do Not Call List. In my case I signed up before the
list became active. Over the past year or two I have seen other
comments similar to yours so it does seem like this list works well
for some and not at all for others.

My experience has been: I had 2 calls (both from local companies) the
first month of it being in place. Also I had voicemail a couple of
months ago from one other company, not national.

So in my case the DNC list has worked great. To be honest I really
didn't expect it to work but it apparently has for me. Now if the
congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every
charity under the sun I would really be happy.

clifto

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

Scott wrote:
> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Understood, but legislating annoying and rude behavior would require
> another new arm of the government to handle the volume.

While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to
include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation
and hard work into giving them permission to abuse their relationships
with their customers. This is not a case of needing special legislation
to make them conform to the rules, which your comment might address,
but one of going out of their way to please the telesleaze operations.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

Kurt

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

In article < 5gq7v256jnhp4683hufa
05qbddn6suapol@4ax.com>,
Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 15:46:24 -0800, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> One question. Do you, or for that matter, does anybody consider this
> type of message to be spam? Personally I don't. I haven't checked my
> phone yet but I would actually appreciate there sending it out.

Yes, this was fine for me. Appreciated the heads-up, even though I
already took care of it. Thousands probably wouldn't have, otherwise.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Kurt

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

In article < i5t8v2duei2vngmkjmt7
tu6k36fdrjuad3@4ax.com>,
Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote:

> SNIP
>
>
>
>
> I think it is interesting how different people have had different
> results with the Do Not Call List. In my case I signed up before the
> list became active. Over the past year or two I have seen other
> comments similar to yours so it does seem like this list works well
> for some and not at all for others.
>
> My experience has been: I had 2 calls (both from local companies) the
> first month of it being in place. Also I had voicemail a couple of
> months ago from one other company, not national.
>
> So in my case the DNC list has worked great. To be honest I really
> didn't expect it to work but it apparently has for me. Now if the
> congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every
> charity under the sun I would really be happy.

In my experience., the Do Not Call list has worked well, EXCEPT for the
incessant Indian telemarketers trying to sell web services.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Scott

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b0fec4-05e.ln1@remote.clifto.com:

> Scott wrote:
>
> While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to
> include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation
> and hard work into giving them permission to abuse their relationships
> with their customers. This is not a case of needing special
> legislation to make them conform to the rules, which your comment
> might address, but one of going out of their way to please the
> telesleaze operations.
>

Again understood, but I don't see how the "Telesleaze operators" were
pleased by this. There are only a few exceptions to the DNC:

- non-profit organizations
- political calls (you don't actually expect them to cut off their own
noses, do you?) - companies with which you have had a working business
relationship in the last ? years (I don't remember the timeframe)

Most companies (Cingular included) do give you the ability to opt-out of
scenario three, which is interestingly enough the only exception that
you can opt to exclude. Personally, I find the "public service calls"
from G Dubya and Babs Streisand around election time to be much more
obnoxious and intrusive, and yet I can't tell them not to call.

I fail to see where the telemarketers were given any slack. If you're
getting calls from someone who doesn't meet one of the exclusions above,
reprt them to the FCC. There were some big and well publicized fines
handed out when the national DNC was first instituted. As time went on,
people stopped reporting telemarketers as much.

I have yet to get any calls from anyone but the local ARC store and a
ton of politicians at election time (and I've been on the list since its
inception). I don't get any calls from any of my service providers
because I did request them to take me off thier calling lists. I
haven't had to tell anyone twice.

Dale M. White

2007-03-12, 7:33 am

Buzzing in Late, but "No I haven't gotten any such Msg from Cingular and
like the Original poster. In fact, I don't know that I ever get anything
from Cingular, though I'd be annoyed if I did. But in my case, Text
Messages are active and I'd tolerate a text message over an actual phone
call. If I had text messaging turned off and was charged for a message they
sent, even if it was a penny, I'd be pretty pissed. But I don't think they
charge for internal messages.

I love the Do No call list. I went from getting calls at least twice a week
to absolutely nothing. MCI, who I was technically using, because they owned
the 10-10-220 people, called all the time. But I filed a compliant on the do
not call website and never heard from them again

On a side note, I have allstate and Allstate person (or some group they
hired) called me one day to sell me their roadside assistance program. I let
the lady give me the pitch and then said, I wasn't interersted. Where she
pissed me off, is with the generic telemarktting crap of " But sir, it's
only $1 for the first 2 months, so let's go ahead and get that started and
you can look over the paper work to decide if it's right for you".
Nothing sets me off more than a telemarketer thinking they are just going to
sign me right on up like I'm a mindless moron.

After I told her to buzz off, I called Allstate and gave them an earful and
made the usual threat that, even though I've been with Allstate for 10
years, if I get another telemarketing style call trying to sell me
something, I have no problems switching over to Progressive or Geico in a
heartbeat. They gave me the usual "we're very sorry, won't happen
again..blah blah blah" Had they said it was an "Administraive call' and that
I would get them from time to time, I probably would have switched over to
someone else.

I don't mind FYI calls, e-mails, snail mail text messages. But call and talk
to me like a mindless sheep and I'll go all Hulk rage on ya :)

"Mary" <zzz@zzz.com> wrote in message
news:i5t8v2duei2vngm
kjmt7tu6k36fdrjuad3@
4ax.com...
> SNIP
>
>
>
>
> I think it is interesting how different people have had different
> results with the Do Not Call List. In my case I signed up before the
> list became active. Over the past year or two I have seen other
> comments similar to yours so it does seem like this list works well
> for some and not at all for others.
>
> My experience has been: I had 2 calls (both from local companies) the
> first month of it being in place. Also I had voicemail a couple of
> months ago from one other company, not national.
>
> So in my case the DNC list has worked great. To be honest I really
> didn't expect it to work but it apparently has for me. Now if the
> congress would only outlaw there own damn calls and those of every
> charity under the sun I would really be happy.
>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:58:24 -0400, Mary <zzz@zzz.com> wrote in
< i5t8v2duei2vngmkjmt7
tu6k36fdrjuad3@4ax.com>:

>So in my case the DNC list has worked great. ...

Me too. And now I've cut the landline cord, which has dropped my
telemarketing calls to zero, yet another reason to do that. :)

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 12:33 pm

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 18:12:42 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<b0fec4-05e.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>Scott wrote:
>
>While they were writing the TCPA, they had to go out of their way to
>include language exempting bozos from the rules. They put deliberation
>and hard work into giving them permission to abuse their relationships
>with their customers. This is not a case of needing special legislation
>to make them conform to the rules, which your comment might address,
>but one of going out of their way to please the telesleaze operations.

I disagree -- the TCPA is reasonable and balanced.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-12, 3:33 pm

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:07:42 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:47:48 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< duq7v29vsu07n8o9g695
3mcgcg4rfjdlou@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>No offense intended, but I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Despite
>how you feel personally, this isn't actual "spam" by the commonly
>accepted definition.

By the John navas definition only. Unsolicited attempt to sell
services = SPAM

+ . In years as a Cingular customer never before March 9, 2007 had I
received a "Administrative Message" by txt on my cell phone.
It was plainly a SPAM message as all it did was direct me to a
Cingular website to learn about buying txt or photo messaging from my
cell phone; a service I asked to be disabled in July of 2004, and
Cingular CSRs confirmed that my account showed that txt messaging was
turned off.
Cinglar never-the-less violated my privacy and its own privacy
rules by sending me the SPAM txt message, and
lamely trying to CYA by calling it an "Administrative Message".
Any 12 of my peers (except Navas) would conclude it was SPAM.
Heavens forfend Cingular use an insert with my next bill.

+. I was NEVER given the opportunity to opt out.

+. I never opted in to receive same.

+. The message received on March 9, was clearly not Administrative, as
if I had not received it or acted upon that message, my account would
not have been affected in any way, however the SPAM
failed to give receipient option to not receive such anymore, a
clear
violation of Federal Law. (i.e.) reply with a "CANCEL" to stop
receiving
administrative messages. A true Administrative Message would be
like the notice I received from DirecTv telling me my units WOULD
be affected
if they hadn't received the recent updates to handle the new
longer Daylight Savings Time.

+. I have now asked that my account be configured to NEVER receive
Adminsitartive txt Messages, but fear Cingular will invent some
new name for SPAM, and automatically opt me in to receive such; as it
improperly just did for the SPAM I received on March 9.

+. Cingular refused to offer any compensation for its outrageous,
illegal actions; and the time and energy it took me to discover what
was happening. I HAVE MY OPTIONS HERE.

+. Cingular has clearly been disingenuous and dishonest in dealing
with me on this matter.

> You have an existing business relationship with
>Cingular, which makes it legal and legitimate for Cingular to contact
>you regarding that business relationship.

I had text messaging tuned off on my account, and they over rode it to
SPAM me.

> If you don't want such
>communications from Cingular, then do business with someone else.

That is certainly an option.

> If
>you don't like that legal standard, then contact your government. And
>think hard about why you're getting major upset over something so minor.

It's Cingular's unique interpretation that's in question.

clifto

2007-03-12, 3:33 pm

Scott wrote:
> There are only a few exceptions to the DNC:
>
> - non-profit organizations
> - political calls (you don't actually expect them to cut off their own
> noses, do you?) - companies with which you have had a working business
> relationship in the last ? years (I don't remember the timeframe)
>
> Most companies (Cingular included) do give you the ability to opt-out of
> scenario three, which is interestingly enough the only exception that
> you can opt to exclude.

I believe that's required by law. I do NOT believe they'd do it if it
wasn't required by law. A lot of these companies will NOT do so if you
use the wrong language, e.g. "take me off your list", "quit calling me";
holding exactly to the letter of the law, they will blast you with
calls until you precisely ask to be put *onto* their do-not-call list.

> Personally, I find the "public service calls"
> from G Dubya and Babs Streisand around election time to be much more
> obnoxious and intrusive, and yet I can't tell them not to call.

I agree this is a travesty. I have resolved to vote against any
candidate for any office who spams my phone, regardless of how much
I might have wanted that person in office. So far I have done that.

> I fail to see where the telemarketers were given any slack. If you're
> getting calls from someone who doesn't meet one of the exclusions above,
> reprt them to the FCC.

The few who've called me without legal permission were very, very good
at hiding the origins of their calls. Believe me, if I thought I had
enough on any one of them to take them into small claims court, I'd
be there in a flash for my $500.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

clifto

2007-03-12, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I disagree -- the TCPA is reasonable and balanced.

It's heavily weighted against the person who does not want to receive
calls. It was deliberately made so by the efforts of the Direct
Marketing Association and others.

"Reasonable" would be "call me only if you have permission, or your
call is urgent to me." Unreasonable is "my phone is every bozo's
dedicated advertising medium." TCPA enacted the latter into law.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

clifto

2007-03-12, 3:33 pm

John Navas wrote:
> Me too. And now I've cut the landline cord, which has dropped my
> telemarketing calls to zero, yet another reason to do that. :)

There's something very comforting about 48 volts on a twisted pair,
especially when disaster strikes and cell networks are all but unusable.

--
Martians drive SUVs! <http://oregonmag.com/MarsWarm307.html>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 3:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:40:53 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<6vmgc4-1ut.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>There's something very comforting about 48 volts on a twisted pair,
>especially when disaster strikes and cell networks are all but unusable.

I've found little real difference between landline and cellular in times
of disaster. If anything, I think cellular will be more reliable than
landline in the future. But both are vulnerable -- for those that
really care about staying in touch, the only real options are satphone
and shortwave radio.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:00:16 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< ng8bv2hf56fphobiv6a2
qgi38mtj9ajva3@4ax.com>:

>On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:07:42 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>
>By the John navas definition only. Unsolicited attempt to sell
>services = SPAM

Incorrect on both counts.

>
>It's Cingular's unique interpretation that's in question.

It's your unique (personal) interpretation that's in question.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Spam_...ronic%2
9>

Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send
unsolicited bulk messages, which are universally undesired.

Read those words carefully. Pay particular attention to "abuse",
"bulk", and "universally".

In 2002 and 2003, frequent users of cell phone text messages began to
see an increase in the number of unsolicited (and generally unwanted)
commercial advertisements being sent to their cell phones through
text messaging.

In the United States, this use is regulated by the CAN-SPAM Act of
2003 and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Read those laws carefully. Cingular isn't violating them, not only
because it has a business relationship to you, but also because it's not
charging for those messages.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:37:08 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<4omgc4-1ut.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>It's heavily weighted against the person who does not want to receive
>calls. It was deliberately made so by the efforts of the Direct
>Marketing Association and others.

I disagree.

>"Reasonable" would be "call me only if you have permission, or your
>call is urgent to me." Unreasonable is "my phone is every bozo's
>dedicated advertising medium." TCPA enacted the latter into law.

In your opinion. My opinion differs.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

John Navas

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:32:58 -0500, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in
<agmgc4-1ut.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:

>Scott wrote:

>
>I agree this is a travesty. I have resolved to vote against any
>candidate for any office who spams my phone, regardless of how much
>I might have wanted that person in office. So far I have done that.

That's how a market works, much more effective than regulation.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:33:27 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:00:16 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< ng8bv2hf56fphobiv6a2
qgi38mtj9ajva3@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>Incorrect on both counts.
>
>
>It's your unique (personal) interpretation that's in question.
>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Spam_...ronic%2
9>
>
> Spamming is the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send
> unsolicited bulk messages, which are universally undesired.
>

That fits perfectly what Cingular sent. Thank you. SPAM !!

Michael Paris

2007-03-12, 10:33 pm

"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-8B05F9.15462410032007@news.giganews.com...
>I got a recorded voice message from Cingular today about making sure my
> Treo was updated for daylight savings time.
> Haven't gotten any text messages from them yet.
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Got the same from them for my Treo 750, as well as a text message. I don't
consider that spam. I do get a commercial message from them which isn't
tech releated, honestly it doesn't bother me, I just delete it. Life's too
short the fret over it. Since I use Cingular and they don't charge me or it
doesn't come off my basic tm plan and we do have a business relationship I
consider it fair, as well as getting like one every other month or every
month it's no over done.

BTW, I do think the one for the wrestling thing was sorta redneckish.

Dgggg

2007-03-13, 2:40 pm

Carmen Electra Giving A Head And Taking A Load!
http://Carmen-Electra-Giving-A-Head...hp?movie=394964

LinkBot