Telemarketing Robocalls Banned by FTC

wbarnhill

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
7,901
Location
Greenwood, SC
Display Name

Display name:
iEXTERMINATE
Beginning Tuesday, September 1, telemarketers will need your written permission to receive marketing robocalls. Of course, this doesn't really do anything for the companies who already broke the law to make these types of calls (ignoring the Do not call list, or calling cell phones), but each violation will carry a $16,000 fine.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/shopping_blog/2009/08/robocalls.html

Those unwanted prerecorded commercial calls, soliciting services such as carpet cleaning or car warranties, will be a thing of the past unless telemarketers have written permission from consumers that they want to receive these calls, the commission said today. Beginning Tuesday, Sept. 1, violators will face penalties up to $16,000 per call. "American consumers have made it crystal clear that few things annoy them more than the billions of commercial telemarketing robocalls they receive every year,” Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in a news release. Previously, telemarketers had to tell consumers how to opt out of receiving robocalls.
 
Now if they can just stop the politicians, push-polling, and charities, we'll be in good shape. :cheerswine:
 
Now if they can just stop the politicians, push-polling, and charities, we'll be in good shape. :cheerswine:

What are the chances that the politicians will pass a law limiting their ability to annoy potential supporters? And since the politicians seem to live and die by poll results I can't seem them limiting that avenue either.
 
How can you limit someone's free speech if it endangers no one and does not broach national security?
 
Of course, this doesn't really do anything for the companies who already broke the law to make these types of calls (ignoring the Do not call list, or calling cell phones), but each violation will carry a $16,000 fine.

Whenever they call, I press 1 to talk to a representative, if only to waste their time. The best one was when I got a recording that said they were currently closed, and to call back during normal business hours.

I suspect when you press 1, they connect you to some poor slob who signed up for a work at home job on craigslist. That way they don't pay employees. They only pay a commission to whomever is able to actually sell an extended warranty or credit card.
 
How can you limit someone's free speech if it endangers no one and does not broach national security?
Freedom of speech does not mean that you have to allow people to come uninvited into your home to talk to you. Any telemarketing call is just that, uninvited visitors into your private property.

I really hate all telemarketing calls. I got my best revenge when a local politician running for office called my house at dinner time. I gave him a piece of my mind about unsolicited calls and told him that we would no longer be voting for him. He lost by 1 vote! HA!
 
I really hate all telemarketing calls. I got my best revenge when a local politician running for office called my house at dinner time. I gave him a piece of my mind about unsolicited calls and told him that we would no longer be voting for him. He lost by 1 vote! HA!

Well, one party so annoyed me with their incessant (and even threatening) calls a few years ago that I, for the first time in my life, pulled the straight ticket lever in the voting booth.
 
Oh, I hate them too. I just don't see how you get around the 1st amendment.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee that you can use any particular medium to reach people.

Roosevelt managed to silence Rev. Charles Coughlin back in the '30s.

wikipedia said:
In spite of his early support for Roosevelt, Coughlin's populist message contained bitter attacks on the Roosevelt administration. The administration decided that although the First Amendment protected free speech, it did not necessarily apply to broadcasting, because the radio spectrum was a "limited national resource" and regulated as a publicly-owned commons. New regulations and restrictions were created to force Coughlin off the air. For the first time, operating permits were required of those who were regular radio broadcasters. When Coughlin's permit was denied, he was temporarily silenced.

.................
In October 1939, one month after the invasion of Poland, the Code Committee of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) adopted new rules which placed "rigid limitations on the sale of radio time to spokesman of controversial public issues". Manuscripts were required to be submitted in advance. Radio stations were threatened with the loss of their licenses if they failed to comply. This ruling was clearly aimed at Coughlin due to his opposition to prospective American involvement in World War II.

Coughlin reasoned that although the government had assumed the right to regulate any on-air broadcasts, the First Amendment still guaranteed and protected freedom of the written press. He could still print his editorials without censorship in his own newspaper, Social Justice. However, the Roosevelt administration stepped in again, this time revoking his mailing privileges[clarification needed] and making it impossible for Coughlin to deliver the papers to his readers. He had the right to publish whatever he wanted, but not the right to use the United States Post Office Department to deliver it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin
 
So a new law is going stop lawbreakers?

I'm putting Privacy Manager back on my phone (you just reminded me to call) and I'm getting one of these:
http://www.digitone.com/

Still won't stop the aholes calling my celllphone.
 

Can we just go a step further and disallow any "blocking" of Caller ID information? Hell, can't the systems just ignore the flag for withholding the CID info? Or if Automatic Number Identification is more secure, let's just utilize that. But I can't think of a real legitimate reason why a caller would need his phone number blocked when dialing someone else, aside from maybe anonymous tipsters, but that's a whole other area...
 
Can we just go a step further and disallow any "blocking" of Caller ID information? Hell, can't the systems just ignore the flag for withholding the CID info? Or if Automatic Number Identification is more secure, let's just utilize that. But I can't think of a real legitimate reason why a caller would need his phone number blocked when dialing someone else, aside from maybe anonymous tipsters, but that's a whole other area...

Privacy Manager does that on your side - at least makes them jump though a hoop and give you a chance to shut them down and never answer. No "Private Caller" or "Out of Area" ever rings your phone.

The problem is that calls that have an ID, even if its' "Nigerian Fund Outreach" will ring your phone. Note, too, that it's trivial to spoof the Caller ID and Name.

See:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29787673/the_boy_who_heard_too_much
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/02/blind_hacker/?2008
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/blind_hacker/



Call Screening Service, BTW, is very limited in my experience. About every number I wanted to add to be blocked was not allowed.

I also can't block the skip tracers that can repeatedly call any phone at random even when you take the time to repeatedly tell them you aren't who they're looking for. THAT'S where the FTC needs to step in.

All the above why you need the Call Screening box above.
 
Last edited:
Privacy Manager does that on your side - at least makes them jump though a hoop and give you a chance to shut them down and never answer. No "Private Caller" or "Out of Area" ever rings your phone.

The problem is that calls that have an ID, even if its' "Nigerian Fund Outreach" will ring your phone. Note, too, that it's trivial to spoof the Caller ID and Name.

See:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/29787673/the_boy_who_heard_too_much
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2008/02/blind_hacker/?2008
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/blind_hacker/



Call Screening Service, BTW, is very limited in my experience. About every number I wanted to add to be blocked was not allowed.

I also can't block the skip tracers that can call any phoen at random even when you take the time to repeatedly tell them you aren't who they're looking for. THAT'S where the FTC needs to step in.

All the above why you need the Call Screening box above.

Oh yeah, spoofing CID is easy enough, there's websites that'll take all the work out of the equation for you. But I'm under the impression that ANI is a completely different system and was a bit more difficult to try to override. :dunno:
 
Can we just go a step further and disallow any "blocking" of Caller ID information? Hell, can't the systems just ignore the flag for withholding the CID info? Or if Automatic Number Identification is more secure, let's just utilize that. But I can't think of a real legitimate reason why a caller would need his phone number blocked when dialing someone else, aside from maybe anonymous tipsters, but that's a whole other area...

I think there are lots of legitimate reasons for blocking Caller ID. The one that comes to mind first is a women's shelter. If they didn't disable CID, some irate abusing husband would use the number for further abuse or maybe even track down the address and show up fighting.

I was under the impression that most phone services can set you up so that your phone won't accept calls with blocked or missing ID. The caller gets routed to voicemail and/or an announcement that they need to enable CID and retry the call if they want a person to answer. Seems like that would be more appropriate than eliminating the ability to block the ID on certain lines.
 
I think there are lots of legitimate reasons for blocking Caller ID. The one that comes to mind first is a women's shelter. If they didn't disable CID, some irate abusing husband would use the number for further abuse or maybe even track down the address and show up fighting.

I was under the impression that most phone services can set you up so that your phone won't accept calls with blocked or missing ID. The caller gets routed to voicemail and/or an announcement that they need to enable CID and retry the call if they want a person to answer. Seems like that would be more appropriate than eliminating the ability to block the ID on certain lines.

Google Voice :yes: :cool2:
 
...
I was under the impression that most phone services can set you up so that your phone won't accept calls with blocked or missing ID. The caller gets routed to voicemail and/or an announcement that they need to enable CID and retry the call if they want a person to answer. Seems like that would be more appropriate than eliminating the ability to block the ID on certain lines.

That's Privacy Manager which has other names in other areas.
 
Back
Top