The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:37:25 -0800, "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net"
> <kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Why have this law when there is no one to enforce it ?
>> I have a un-listed number, on the do not call list, and get calls all
>> the time. Voice and fax calls. Faxes happen at early am hours. I called
>> SBC about it. They told me there is no way to get them to stop. All they
>> can do is change my number. Nice law.
>>
>> Just another law that someone made millions on.
>
> I think the law, while not perfect, is working pretty well. I have a
> primary and two secondary numbers, all unlisted. I maybe get 1 or 2
> questionable calls per year total through all three numbers. Plus,
> there's a wide variety of calls the law was never intended to address.
> The hangups and fax calls number among them. That's why I asked the
> OP (twice) what his state law says about harassment.
>
>> What about the spam law ? Same thing. Give us your email address. We
>> will make a data base of all these email address and then compile them
>> onto mega amounts of media. You then pay for this of course. But you
>> still get spam.
>
> The spam law is useless because most of the spam these days is
> generated outside the US, and thus, outside the jurisdiction of US
> courts. I knew when it passed it was an exercise in futility.
>
>> Or the best one yet. You get spam, At the bottom it tells you that if
>> you want off the list reply to the listed email below. Remove@xyz.com
>> They then have your good email address that they sell as a good working
>> email address.
>
> It's been widely known for years that the "remove me" links should
> *never* be used.
>
True, But the do not call list is a POS law. If your phone company cant
do anything about it other then change your number then what good is it.

Years before this came out all one had to do was call the phone company
and get the same thing they offer now. So there is nothing great about
this law at all. No enforcement and they now it.