Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist

Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist

http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)

"Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
your cellphone "for informational purposes.""

Per NotMe:
>Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>
>http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>
> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""

My experience has been that the Do Not Call List has become moot
as the spammers have moved offshore and/or hidden behind
VOIP/Skype accounts.

I was sending reports to the Penna Attorney General's Do Not Call
violation site religiously, but I gave up after the umpteenth
lame letter to the effect above.

Following that bill will be revealing in that it will identify
legislators who are taking payoffs from the telemarketers.

A sort of litmus test....
--
PeteCresswell

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>
> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>
> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>
>
>
>
>
Called the Mobile Information Act of 2011, it was introduced by some
scumbag legislator, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), and co sponsored by another
scumbag legislator, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY). The purpose of the bill is
defined as:

"To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to
mobile telephone numbers, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

What "other" purposes?????? There is absolutely NO reasonable need for this
legislation other than receiving a sizeable campaign contribution. What
possible "information" could you get, involuntarily, on a cell phone (and
use your minutes and/or data allotment) that you couldn't get from all the
other sources available.

It's bad enough that the Do Not Call List, as pointed out by others, has
become ineffectual....now this.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

"stevev" <stevev@addlebrain.com> wrote in message
news:j65o7i$r90$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>
>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>
>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>
> Called the Mobile Information Act of 2011, it was introduced by some
> scumbag legislator, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), and co sponsored by another
> scumbag legislator, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY). The purpose of the bill
> is defined as:
>
> "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to
> mobile telephone numbers, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
>
> What "other" purposes?????? There is absolutely NO reasonable need for
> this legislation other than receiving a sizeable campaign contribution.
> What possible "information" could you get, involuntarily, on a cell phone
> (and use your minutes and/or data allotment) that you couldn't get from
> all the other sources available.
>
> It's bad enough that the Do Not Call List, as pointed out by others, has
> become ineffectual....now this.
>
> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
> news@netfront.net ---

I wouldn't say that Do Not Call is ineffectual. It's not airtight - for
years there have been a few notorious U.S.-based robocall violators with
phony Caller ID numbers. "Press 1 if you want to reduce your credit card or
loan interest rates." And every 3-4 months I get a live cold call from some
local merchant. When I point out that they're violating the law, they plead
ignorance or that they're working from a list provided by a vendor that
supposedly screened out DNC numbers. But on the whole, the number of
legitimate solicitation calls I get has gone from 4-5 a week to zero.

It now is illegal to send fax spam, on the grounds that it ties up the
recipient's fax machine and wastes paper and ink. If existing laws or
regulations don't specifically provide the same protection for cell phones,
then as the cartoonist Jimmy Hatlo used to say, "There ought to be a law!"

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>
> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>
> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""

Very bad idea. With these calls, the recipient gets charged for the call
as well as the caller. I won't pay for junk calls.

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>
> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>
> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>
They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you try
and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me) or have
cursed out the recipient.

"crkeehn"

>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>
>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>
>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>
> They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
> blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you try
> and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me) or
> have cursed out the recipient.

Play the game. Give them a false, but plausible, name and as for the
details to be mailed (keep the envelope as that may help with the postal
inspector's office). I use my wife's great great uncle who died in the
early 1900s.

In general a complaint to your congress critter about telemarketers and spam
can't hurt but in reality won't help much unless everyone complains.

For grins I've answered the phone 'wireless telemarketing fraud
investigation'. Don't know if it reduces the call volume but it does result
in a quick disconnect.

You can also play the phone intercept game and advise the 'number you have
called has been changed and the give them the number of the DA, the AG or
your congress critter's local office.

My son has a fax handshake tone on his incoming calls. Everyone that knows
him know the game and waits for him to answer. The rest usually disconnect
and 'drum roll' put the number on an internal 'do not call list'.

"mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net> wrote:

> I wouldn't say that Do Not Call is ineffectual.

I would.

> It's not airtight - for years there have been a few notorious
> U.S.-based robocall violators with phony Caller ID numbers.
> "Press 1 if you want to reduce your credit card or loan interest
> rates." And every 3-4 months I get a live cold call from some
> local merchant.

3 to 4 calls per day here.

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Per mazorj:
>But on the whole, the number of
>legitimate solicitation calls I get has gone from 4-5 a week to zero.

That was my situation too for several years.

Count your blessings.

Now we're back to several calls per day on the land line and
multiple calls per week on my cell phone.

My take is that it will go downhill from here bc the callers are
immune once they go offshore - which they seem tb doing.
--
PeteCresswell

Per NotMe:
>My son has a fax handshake tone on his incoming calls. Everyone that knows
>him know the game and waits for him to answer. The rest usually disconnect
>and 'drum roll' put the number on an internal 'do not call list'.

There's a certain beauty in that approach.....
--
PeteCresswell

Per stevev:
>Called the Mobile Information Act of 2011, it was introduced by some
>scumbag legislator, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), and co sponsored by another
>scumbag legislator, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY). The purpose of the bill is
>defined as:
>
>"To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to
>mobile telephone numbers, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

http://towns.house.gov/
http://leeterry.house.gov/

Sounds like a story just *made* for the evening news on one of
the major networks:

- Lots of interest - sort of the flip side of the lady legislator
who introduced the bill to limit volume on commercials.

Based on her comments on how many people thanked her, I'd think
these guys' opponents in the next election will have a strong
tool...

- Simple to research - it's all there in the house's record

- Opportunity for a little enhancement - if somebody tried to
follow the money.
--
PeteCresswell

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:j6790e$8jo$1@dont-email.me...
>
> "crkeehn"
>
>>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>>
>>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>>
>> They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
>> blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you
>> try and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me)
>> or have cursed out the recipient.
>
> Play the game. Give them a false, but plausible, name and as for the
> details to be mailed (keep the envelope as that may help with the postal
> inspector's office). I use my wife's great great uncle who died in the
> early 1900s.
>
> In general a complaint to your congress critter about telemarketers and
> spam can't hurt but in reality won't help much unless everyone complains.
>
> For grins I've answered the phone 'wireless telemarketing fraud
> investigation'. Don't know if it reduces the call volume but it does
> result in a quick disconnect.
>
> You can also play the phone intercept game and advise the 'number you have
> called has been changed and the give them the number of the DA, the AG or
> your congress critter's local office.
>
> My son has a fax handshake tone on his incoming calls. Everyone that
> knows him know the game and waits for him to answer. The rest usually
> disconnect and 'drum roll' put the number on an internal 'do not call
> list'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Reading all these clever ideas and "work-arounds" is interesting, but...why
don't we just NOT pass legislation like HR3035 (the Mobile Imformational
Call Act of 2011).

I'm willing to bet that you legislator, your DA, or your AG never got a
single call from any individual complaining that he or she was NOT getting
enough "informational' calls on his or her cell phone (or land line, or
whatever).

There is just no reason for this legislation other than the
obvious...someone has already made $$$ from it, namely the jerk that
proposed it, and the person paying him that $$$ hopes to make even more in
return.

Just a cynic's view.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

"stevev" <stevev@addlebrain.com> wrote in message
news:j6886r$c6i$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:j6790e$8jo$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>> "crkeehn"
>>
>>>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>>>
>>>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>>>
>>>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>>>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>>>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>>>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>>>
>>> They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
>>> blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you
>>> try and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me)
>>> or have cursed out the recipient.
>>
>> Play the game. Give them a false, but plausible, name and as for the
>> details to be mailed (keep the envelope as that may help with the postal
>> inspector's office). I use my wife's great great uncle who died in the
>> early 1900s.
>>
>> In general a complaint to your congress critter about telemarketers and
>> spam can't hurt but in reality won't help much unless everyone complains.
>>
>> For grins I've answered the phone 'wireless telemarketing fraud
>> investigation'. Don't know if it reduces the call volume but it does
>> result in a quick disconnect.
>>
>> You can also play the phone intercept game and advise the 'number you
>> have called has been changed and the give them the number of the DA, the
>> AG or your congress critter's local office.
>>
>> My son has a fax handshake tone on his incoming calls. Everyone that
>> knows him know the game and waits for him to answer. The rest usually
>> disconnect and 'drum roll' put the number on an internal 'do not call
>> list'.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Reading all these clever ideas and "work-arounds" is interesting,
> but...why don't we just NOT pass legislation like HR3035 (the Mobile
> Imformational Call Act of 2011).
>
> I'm willing to bet that you legislator, your DA, or your AG never got a
> single call from any individual complaining that he or she was NOT getting
> enough "informational' calls on his or her cell phone (or land line, or
> whatever).
>
> There is just no reason for this legislation other than the
> obvious...someone has already made $$$ from it, namely the jerk that
> proposed it, and the person paying him that $$$ hopes to make even more in
> return.
>
> Just a cynic's view.

You may be a cynic but as the joke goes are you cynical enough. My congress
critters and all the rest have consistently signed off on who has the best
lobbyist ($$$) available.

Recall those are the same folk that gave the DMA the CAN SPAM act which
basically said they can do what they want and you can't do sh|t. The DNC
list is clearly a joke as there is ZERO funding to enforce any of that.

Per Elmo P. Shagnasty:
>Finally, instead of just blocking the numbers as they came up, I used my
>provider's tools auomatically to forward the call to my US senator's
>office. I just went through my control panel, found every entry I had
>blocked--maybe ten of them--and set them all to forward. Then, as a new
>number came in, I set it to forward.
>...
>Funny thing: I haven't gotten one of those calls in quite awhile--long
>enough that I wonder if the first forward got some serious attention
>from the new recipient....
>...
>Maybe we should all get together, and those of us with this sort of tool
>at our disposal could coordinate to forward all such calls to just one
>senator's office. Then maybe every few months switch to another.

+1 except part of me wonders if you are setting yourself up as a
target for some sort of legal action by the lawmakers in
question.

If it wasn't for that, I think I'd be trying to figure out how to
do the same thing to the cell phones of senators Towns
(http://towns.house.gov/) and Terry (http://leeterry.house.gov/)
--
PeteCresswell

On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 06:57:19 -0400, crkeehn wrote:

>
> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>
>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>
>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>
> They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
> blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you try
> and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me) or have
> cursed out the recipient.

I press "1" and let them start their speil, and say, "Give me your address
so I can send you my cell phone bill, so YOU can pay for all my minutes
you've WASTED in the past week!"

Usually get a <click> and the calls stop.

I kept getting calls to get a maintenance contract on my car. Asked to be
removed, etc, still the calls kept coming.

I pressed "1", got a representative and he asked what was the year make
and model. "Which one?"

<click>

Next time: "1988 Toyota Supra, 165,000 miles" (their cutoff is 180,000)

<click>...and they never called again!

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:11:10 -0700, D. Stussy wrote:

> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>
>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>
>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>
> Very bad idea. With these calls, the recipient gets charged for the call
> as well as the caller. I won't pay for junk calls.

Well, that's the current "brains" in Congress right now. Doofuses, ALL of
them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"hachiroku" <haciroku@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:4e8a75a3$0$27972$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraw eb.com...
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2011 06:57:19 -0400, crkeehn wrote:
>
>>
>> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>>
>>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses contact
>>> your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>>
>> They apparently already are. There is an unspecified company that keeps
>> blasting my cellphone with offers to reduce credit card rates. If you
>> try
>> and find out who they are they either hang up (which happened to me) or
>> have
>> cursed out the recipient.
>
> I press "1" and let them start their speil, and say, "Give me your address
> so I can send you my cell phone bill, so YOU can pay for all my minutes
> you've WASTED in the past week!"
>
> Usually get a <click> and the calls stop.
>
> I kept getting calls to get a maintenance contract on my car. Asked to be
> removed, etc, still the calls kept coming.
>
> I pressed "1", got a representative and he asked what was the year make
> and model. "Which one?"
>
> <click>
>
> Next time: "1988 Toyota Supra, 165,000 miles" (their cutoff is 180,000)
>
> <click>...and they never called again!
>
>
>

Interestingly enough, I got another of those lower your rate calls
yesterday. I pressed one and asked which company she represented. She did
respond but evasively. I got tired and said "so you're participating in a
scam." She goes, you're being rude. By that time I had hung up.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per NotMe:
>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>
>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>
>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the past
>> email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone could be
>> opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let businesses
>> contact your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>
> My experience has been that the Do Not Call List has become moot
> as the spammers have moved offshore and/or hidden behind
> VOIP/Skype accounts.
>
> I was sending reports to the Penna Attorney General's Do Not Call
> violation site religiously, but I gave up after the umpteenth
> lame letter to the effect above.
>
> Following that bill will be revealing in that it will identify
> legislators who are taking payoffs from the telemarketers.
>
> A sort of litmus test....
>
Are you kidding? The do not call list has become a joke. I'm getting calls
on my regular landline daily once again and I have gotten them periodically
on my cell phone. No one cares because there is no repercussion.

I looked into the reporting system and it is way too cumbersome to get
involved with. I just don't have the time.

The do not call list is another good idea that's just become useless.

If the bill you've alluded to actually passes, that will render cell phones
useless to me except for making outgoing calls as I'll probably have to turn
mine off all the time.

mazorj wrote:
> "stevev" <stevev@addlebrain.com> wrote in message
> news:j65o7i$r90$1@adenine.netfront.net...
>>
>> "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:j65ao8$vqo$1@dont-email.me...
>>> Bill Introduced To Let Robots Call Your Cellphone - The Consumerist
>>>
>>> http://j.mp/pZWrnd (Consumerist)
>>>
>>> "Last week, a bill was introduced to change that. While in the
>>> past email hoaxes have gone around saying that your cellphone
>>> could be opened up to telemarketers, HR 3035 seeks to let
>>> businesses contact your cellphone "for informational purposes.""
>>>
>> Called the Mobile Information Act of 2011, it was introduced by some
>> scumbag legislator, Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE), and co sponsored by
>> another scumbag legislator, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY). The purpose
>> of the bill is defined as:
>>
>> "To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational
>> calls to mobile telephone numbers, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
>>
>> What "other" purposes?????? There is absolutely NO reasonable need
>> for this legislation other than receiving a sizeable campaign
>> contribution. What possible "information" could you get,
>> involuntarily, on a cell phone (and use your minutes and/or data
>> allotment) that you couldn't get from all the other sources
>> available. It's bad enough that the Do Not Call List, as pointed out by
>> others,
>> has become ineffectual....now this.
>>
>> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
>> news@netfront.net ---
>
> I wouldn't say that Do Not Call is ineffectual. It's not airtight -
> for years there have been a few notorious U.S.-based robocall
> violators with phony Caller ID numbers.
I think you've missed the point. As I posted elsewhere here, I am receiving
more and more calls from regular solicitors, not robots, almost everyday.
Small businessmen, like the handyman who just called me, don't even consider
the law (they don't check any list), and larger companies simply ignore it.

Take a look at the forms you have to fill out to report abuses and see if
you really want to get tied up with that beauracratic nightmare.

Per Carl:
>I think you've missed the point. As I posted elsewhere here, I am receiving
>more and more calls from regular solicitors, not robots, almost everyday.
>Small businessmen, like the handyman who just called me, don't even consider
>the law (they don't check any list), and larger companies simply ignore it.

One of the recent ones I got on my cell phone was from a live
caller.

I asked him if he checked the No-Call list before calling.

His reply: "I'm on the No-Care list...." Click!....

Gotta give the guy credit for quick thinking though..... -)
--
PeteCresswell