Just because "paying for a service" was used as a basis for a cell phone law doesn't mean that I have to agree that the basis for that law was a good one.
There is a distinction between "paying for a service" (phone line, cable service, internet service) and private property (your house, your land, your telephone, your TV, your computer). That cell phone service is not our private property. We're simply leasing open lines from companies.
I hate sales calls, too. But, the phone companies, not the feds, should handle it. (I like the idea of a "No Solicitors" message transmitted to telemarketers by the phone company, and harrassment charges against a telemarketer who ignores a person's request not to call. Certain keys could be dialed to report telemarketers for harrassment and the calls traced. No need to ask for the telemarketing manager, just report them via the phone company for harrassment).
C'mon, Discostu, we have too many federal laws as it is. Big Brother is already micromanaging our lives, and this is just another step in that direction.
Telemarketers are companies that COLD call people who have shown no previous interest in a product to try to get them to buy it. They are using the TELEphone as a MARKETing tool. I have no problem with anybody doing followup contact by phone, that's not telemarketing, that's telephone sales.
"Telephone sales" also involves cold-calling. Telephone salespeople who sit around waiting for people to call them aren't salespeople at all - they're "order-takers".
As I've said REPEATEDLY, and you deliberately have ignored REPEATEDLY: if the telemarketing companies would just have respected people's right to not get harrassed this never would have happened.
We could apply the above to everything: "If gunowners would've just abided by the law, we wouldn't have to crack down on them." "If companies would've stopped polluting the environment, we wouldn't need laws to stop them."
I'm sure we're both busy people. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't have to agree with everyone here about everything. :-)
OK you don't think that's a good basis. That's your right, but it doesn't make you right. It's the basis for all laws about people's right to tell telemarketers to stop bothering them.
Now you're continuing with your version of what the law would be based on, which is nothing more than a strawman for irradicating all these laws. The law is based on theft of service. PERIOD.
We already gave them No Solicitor signs with caller ID, their answer was to find a way to stunt caller ID to let them through. We errected another No Solicitor sign with telezapper, AGAIN they decided the best response was to find a way around it. Of course before all that the federal government forced them to give us a way to get off their list, their answer was to make it as difficult as possible to do so. Now the fed is making a central list that they all have to follow. If they'd have followed the intent of the law in the first place the fed wouldn't have stepped in, but they didn't.
Another strawman, just because we have too many federal laws doesn't mean all new federal laws are bad. That same poor logic would apply equally to all federal law including those against murder, kidnap and fraud. Stop erecting strawmen, stop obfuscating the issue, deal with the FACTS. The FACTS are really quite simple and show quite plainly that the telemarketers over stepped the line repeatedly, they begged for a smackdown and now they're upset that it hurt.
Way to deliberately misinterpret what I said. It's getting quite clear that just like your telemarketing buddies you are incapable of acting in good faith. There are plenty of second contact methods of doing sales calls, those are cold calls.
More strawmen, and exceptionally pathetic ones at that.
No I will not agree to disagree. That would imply your position has a modicum of truth in it. You are wrong, across the board. You are apologizing for an abusive industry that brought it's own troubles on itself and deserves what is happening to it. The DNC list is a clearly justified application of federal government power based on well tested laws applying to theft of service by unwanted intrussions. You may walk away, but there is no agreeing to disagree with those who's desperate need to obfuscate and errect strawmen clearly demonstrates that even they know they are wrong.