And the telemarketers were maintaining their own do not call lists, but they abused the system. Also remember most telemarketing calls cross state lines (they do that to reduce the chance of the caller and recipient knowing each other) so it's tough for the states to handle. And finally given the lack of physical pressence it's a little tough for the private citizen to handle things on their own, I can detain an illegal solicistor until the cops get there, if a telemarketer violates my request to not be called I don't have that luxury.
If the companies had honored the intent of the law and made it easy for people to get off their call lists thing wouldn't have escalated up to the DNC. Because they couldn't play nice on that first call they've lost that priviledge. Which arguably they never should have had, when I post a No Solicistors sign salesmen don't get a one time exception to make sure I mean them.
You're deliberately obfuscating the issue. No one denies the importance of making sales, the discussion here is the legality of the method. Cold call telemarketers exist at the sufference of the person leasing the phone service. Continuing to harass the person after they've requested not to IS illegal regardless of the method of harassment. There are specific laws that have been in place for quite a long time on this.
Again obfuscation, the point isn't whether or not junkmail is annoying, is it theft? And the answer is no because you don't pay to receive it. Since 95% of junkmail is obviously junkmail without you opening it I think you're overstating things trying to appeal to emotion. Not working here.
Again, if a person told a telemarketer not to call again, and the telemarketer or telemarketing company called again, that should be considered "harrassment".
Again obfuscation, the point isn't whether or not junkmail is annoying, is it theft? And the answer is no because you don't pay to receive it. Since 95% of junkmail is obviously junkmail without you opening it I think you're overstating things trying to appeal to emotion.
Actually, it is the pro-DNC list people who are appealing to emotion, as no one (not even I) enjoys receiving sales calls. The point is that your telephone service, though you are paying to use it, is provided to you by a company. And that company isn't providing a service that limits the calls you receive only to those people from whom you want to receive calls. No, it's providing you with an open line so that anyone can call you.
There is little difference between paying for telephone service or cable television (or internet service, for that matter). And I still see little difference between any of the above and receiving mail. It is still my private property to which it is delivered, even though I'm not "paying" for the mail service to deliver it. (We're not paying for the telephone call made by the solicitor, either).
Looks like we're not going to agree here, but that's OK. We don't all have to agree on everything. :-)