Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?

self | self

[Hank Kerchief]

Is there such a thing as a log file record for every single phone call (tens of billions each day) so that this is even physically possible?

Yes. I believe they are called CAMA or LAMA, which records are used for automatic billing purposes.

Would a subpoena be needed ...

No. The Telephone companies are called, "private companies," but are highly regulated and must make certain kinds of data available to the government to stay in business.

Or does the government already have access to all such records?

It can have.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

Well, your side has always had the higher-priced lawyers ...

I'm in private business. Phone solicitation was a problem for me, I solved it. I just don't expect the government to solve every problem for me. So my side is the side of people who can take of their own affairs without appealing to the nanny-state every time something isn't to their liking.

What's that make your side?

There would be nothing wrong with this or any other scheme that prevented unwanted calls of any kind, so long as the government didn't do it. It's not finding a way to prevent unwanted phone solicitation I oppose, it's all the collectivist government solutions to everything I oppose.

Hank

[Hank Kerchief]

99% of telemarketers are outlaws.

Two wrongs still do not make a right.

Hank

[headsonpikes]

Unfortunately, it's the collectivist government that has established the regulations and precedents that govern our relationships with the phone companies and other businesses.

Most of the implied contracts and agreements that one is forced to assent to, or do without service, are entirely the product of previous meddling, imo.

There's something just wrong about pestering - folks have a right to a simple remedy, in law. Period.

[Hank Kerchief]

So you are a kook, also?

Of course!

I assume you mean by "kook," anyone who is not what you are.

Hank

[vaudine]

LOL--I ALWAYS discuss politics. how else to educate the masses.

vaudine

[Heatseeker]

I'm not surprised. We used to do a web site for a "marketing research" agency who refused to pay for a major overhaul. We took the site down and took them to small claims court (we had a contract, signed by the president of the firm) and after many BS delays on their part, they paid most of what they owed us. We wrote the rest off as being a lesson in why not to deal with scumbags.

A year later I ran into the guy who they had contracted to re-do their site (they were too stupid to crawl our site to get the files before we took it down). Yup, you guessed it - they had refused to pay him too.

[Gorzaloon]

Should the government give you the right to sue an obnoxious neighbor for calling at dinner?

If the neighbor repeatedly continues to do so after being told not to, the procedures are outlined in the front of your phone directory.

Look, telemarketing defenders, these trolls are just not working..

[Rudder]

"Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?"

How does telemarketing tell a business what to do?

[SamAdams76]

NO! The "No Soliciting" sign is bought, paid for, and put up by the individual protected by it, the "do not call" registry has to be paid for by someone else. But you don't seem to think taking someone else's money to pay for your convenience is an intrusion.

You know perfectly well where I stand so stop playing dumb and feeding me that BS line about the "gov't" having to pay for it. You know better.

So for the benefit of others, I will state for about the 100th time, my practical solution to this dilemma that does not involve any government money: Invert the "do not call" registry idea. That is, restrict telemarketers only to those homes who "opt in" to the system. Let them pay a fee for it. Then we will have the perfect situation. Only those who want and are willing to pay for telemarketing calls will receive them.

[elfman2]

"I voluntarily initiate the action of watching my TV…My home is connected to a public network of roads and sidewalks - certainly that doesn't mean I must entertain door-to-door sales pitches during dinner"

You voluntarily answer the phone, and you choose to answer the door or not.

[elfman2]

"If, while I was sitting quietly in my home having dinner, my TV suddenly came-on all by itself and started running commercials, that I would be equally miffed"

I presume you’re referring to one of those phones that comes on even after it’s turned off or unplugged. I hate those.

[elfman2]

Well said.

[nmh]

Beats me. In my neighborhood we have signs - NO SOLICITING. That keeps marketeers away so why not stop them from harassing you via the phone? What about MY free speech and acting on that saying I do NOT want their solicitations? WHY is free speech one sided?

[wildandcrazyrussian]

This is interesting about the phone company records (the tens of billions of log entries about every single phone call made by anyone, CAMA or whatever the acronym is). That would explain how the authorities can always find the kid who just called in a bomb threat to the high school to get out of a test (which happens around here semi-frequently).

Then the next question is whether Congress authorized any specific government agencies to have such access and if so what constitutional safeguards are in place.

In theory, the gov't (say the FCC) could just go on a fishing expedition if they decide to target a particular calling company as an example, and run the CAMA list against the D-N-C list to have the names pop up, each with a penalty of $11,000, provable in court ($1 million for each 901). No telemarketing company can possibly afford fines of millions of dollars, or even the potential threat.

The result of the fear factor would be that Sears will quit calling about home improvements altogether, and the scam artists will keep calling but now from the Cayman Islands or many other nearby English-speaking places beyond the reach of American law. I have enough experience researching scam artists to know that passing such a law results in vast unintended consequences.

But the primary purpose of the law, which is for Congress to be able to say they DID SOMETHING -- and get re-elected, has been accomplished.

[elfman2]

Yea, I think those auto dialers are illegal, but they’re in operation anyway.

When I get that lag time after my hello and someone asks for me as if reading my name, I just ignore what they say and ask, “What are you selling?”. Half the time the immediately get to the point, and I say no thank you and hang up. I’m usually insulting to the rest.

[MizSterious]

Read more of the thread. Many folks are being called on their cellular phones.

[narses]

You're spitting into the wind. People hate telemarketers, they want a lottery style payoff if they get called, they could care less about the First Amendment or the economics. They want and that's that.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

That's a major point right there: WHO gets the $11,000 penalty per call? I would assume that the government would keep it, and that there would be no reason to assume it would be shared with the complaining party. A penalty is a transaction between the person found guilty (in this case, of impersonal harassment) and the state agency.

[joesbucks]

No actually the phone line is the property of the phone company. Even if you consider the wire in your house, when you hook up with the phone company, you agree to abide by their rules of use, which includes incoming calls.

Look I'm not defending the industry as such. I'm simply saying we seem to want to kill an industry that employes thousands of people in legitimate commerace for the sake of inconvience.