OT: do you think the new "no call list" will survive?

Page 2 of 3  
"Traves W. Coppock" <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote in message

I heard on the radio that there are approximately 50 million households on the list. I also heard the telemarketers claim that this will put "millions" of telemarketers out of work.
Personally I find it hard to make those two numbers match. Even if we assume that "millions" means 2 million, that means that each telemarketer subsists on calling only 25 people.
Second, since there are somewhere between one and two hundred million households in the US, that implies that there are a minumum of eight million people who make their living doing telemarketing. That is a problem right there.
I guess the lesson is to not believe the telemarking association. Of course we all know this already...
-Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that in their own arrogant way that they are saying if they loose their jobs selling products, the manufacturers of those products would be incapable of surviving and have to lay of millions...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Yeah, there'd be no more replacement windows, vinyl siding, credit cards, or long distance companies, and the entire economy would collapse into ruin within hours.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Traves W. Coppock <newsgroups-AT-farmvalleywoodworks-DOT-com> wrote:

You and fifty million other people, so far.
That's nearly 1/3 of _all_ residential phones in the entire country.
That's a pool of voters of a size that Congress _will_ take heed of.
Congresscritters _have_ already promised *immediate* action, if needed.
The FTC believes the current ruling is wrong, and has asked the judge to delay his ruling, while appealed.
The entire tempest will be over in a week or so. with the list *intact*. Implementation date might be delayed by a week, but that's the "worst case" scenario.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Bonomi responds:

You'er probably right. Then, within 3 weeks, ALL the telemarketers, instead of just most as now, will have Indian accents as the business goes offshore.
Charlie Self
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft." Theodore Roosevelt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Doesn't matter. Off-shore calls _into_ the U.S. are _expressly_ covered by the new rules. An advantage that the FTC has over the FCC.
Note: As of the close of business today, Thursday, both houses of congress had passed, and sent to the President for signature, legislation to correct the 'defect' that the OK court claimed to have found.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And another judge in Denver has ruled the whole law unconstitutional...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2437-2003Sep25.html
Renata
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:59:52 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) wrote: --snip--

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have my doubts that ruling will stand. The judge ruled the law unconstitutional because it prohibits some telemarketing calls, and permits others, based on content; he held that to do so is an unconstitutional infringment of the telemarketers' First Amendment right to free speech.
I believe that ruling will be overturned, on the grounds that nobody has a Constitutional right to telephone people who do not wish to receive calls, i.e. there is no Constitutional right to be annoying.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 26 Sep 2003, Doug Miller spake unto rec.woodworking:

    I agree that it will be overturned, but now it will take a bit of time to wind through the courts.
    Having gone through this on-again off-again roller coaster, I imagine that those who signed on to the Do Not Call list are going to give an earful to any telemarketer with the cojones to call after October 1st.
    More of an earful than usual, I mean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:05:21 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@myrealbox.com (Renata) pixelated:

Can you imagine how much oil money would be lost if we, the people, ruled out junk mail and phone calls? With so much less to deliver (both mail and product), billions of gallons of gas and oil per year would not be sold and profiteered upon. How could our fearless leader allow that? I'm sure the judges have their orders on such matters. (Think how many officials that extra oil money can buy.)
Sign me: Fed up in OR.
-- Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. ---- --Unknown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dear Fed up in OR, Would it suprise you to learn that your Fearless Leader is *STRONGLY* in favor of the Do-Not-Call list??
Fasten your seat-belt. He *is*.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Renata)

You mean god is on our side?
-Jack
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:37:29 GMT, bonomi@c-ns. (Robert Bonomi) pixelated:

Perhaps he is -to the press-. Or maybe it's because he has always hated answering the phone in his mansions or in the White House and being bothered by all those telemarketers. Yeah, maybe that's it.
-- Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. ---- --Unknown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Jaques wrote:

Hello, Mr. President. I hear the windows in your house are very old and ineffeicient, and that you don't yet have vinyl siding. We'll be sending an agent to your residence to give you an estimate on dramatically lowering your monthly energy costs.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The current gripe is about how many telemarketers will be laid off if this goes through. By that logic we should also be worried about all the hookers and crack dealers the cops put out of business. It would actually be a raise in respectability if this phone scum became a hooker. At least they provide a service to the customer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.comGreg says...

The telemarketing people just don't get it, FoxNews had a statement by one of the telemarketers who (paraphrasing) said, "We don't call people to sell them something, we only call so that we can make an appointment to sit down and explain the safety benefits that having a fire and smoke detection system from us can provide". Glad they're not selling anything.
Making it a free speech issue is nonsense, even if different classes are prevented or allowed to make unsolicited calls, they have no inherent right to annoy people with calls on telephones that they neither own nor pay for. By this extension, they should have the right to drive through neigborhoods with sound trucks since police and other civil servants can do so in cases of emergency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I totally concur. I was mystified by that Colorado judge's invocation of the "free speech" doctrine to claim that the do-not call list somehow infringed upon the telemarketers' Constitutional civil liberties. The Founding Fathers were clearly stating that the First Amendment protected individuals from persecution and/or imprisonment for (primarily political) speech. The historical context, of course, was the imprisonment of political opponents in Britain, France, and elsewhere in Europe, or the arrests of individuals for criticism of an existing government's policies. It was this that the framers were opposing. The framers were *not* insisting that drunken hecklers be allowed free rein to shout at and harass a family in a home 24 hours a day. Free speech is a 2-way street, after all; the targets of the telemarketers expressed their earnest wish not to be bothered by the sales pitches at suppertime.
The telemarketers then cited some commerce clauses, claiming that the do-not-call list prevented people who might otherwise desire to hear of commercial offers by telephone, from being able to do so. Yet that's precisely what the D-N-C list does-- people who truly don't mind the telemarketing calls just don't opt to place themselves on the list. What I can't quite fathom here is that, if anything, the D-N-C list might actually *help* the business of the telemarketers, since it will focus their calls on the subset of people who would hear them out, rather than hang up after 3 words on the other line. This would seem to increase business efficiency, since the telemarketers won't waste so many calls on uninterested recipients. The list makes sense from every perspective. The judge said something about "unequal treatment" given to political and charity calls vs. commercial ones, but this seems to be a red herring; AFAIK, numerous SCOTUS decisions have asserted a distinct category for commercial speech, so the FTC and Congress were entirely within legal bounds in giving special consideration to telemarketers' calls.
Now, we need to nail the spammers. Especially with these 250 kb-attachment messages they've recently become fond of, they're even worse than the telemarketers these days. Time to fight the good fight again.
Wes Ulm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which will *NOT* hold up on appeal. The _exact_ same issue was raised about the junk fax statute (TCPA, aka 47 USC 227), and the Sup Ct. held that it _was_ Constitutional.
That doofus judge in Colorado needs a refresher course in constitutional law. which the Appelate court _will_ give him.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Mundt wrote:

The phone is a tool that I pay for for my convenience. If I the phone rings and I stop doing what I am doing to answer it because I have reason to expect a worthwhile call, and it's a sales puke, then they have interrupted me and wasted my time.
If you like sales pukes to call you, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to enjoy going to answer the phone and find a parasite on the other end of the line.
The idea that a sales 'droid should be allowed to ring a bell inside your home to get your attention is ludicrous.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Mundt wrote:

I always say "No, no, no" and hang up. That way they can't somehow twist up a recording of the conversation to prove that I agreed to whatever they were trying to sell.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.