UNSCRUPULOUS VERIZON still HARASSING people!

Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.

The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and still
am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon customer,
so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine to
record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change their
calling methods.

I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on Verizon's
"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this. Finally,
the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN, the
same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover that
Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their "do
not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.

I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other expenses
incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
Verizon under any circumstances.

If you have a similar complaint, send it to donotcall@fcc.gov
Include your name, address, phone number, and the specifics of your problem
with unscrupulous Verizon or whatever company is responsible..

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>
>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and still
>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon customer,

Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.

>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine to
>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change their
>calling methods.

Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
constitutes harassment in your state?

>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on Verizon's
>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this. Finally,
>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN, the
>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover that
>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their "do
>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>
>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other expenses
>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>Verizon under any circumstances.

You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>
>>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>still
>>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>customer,

> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.

There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
customers and the public in general? People should be warned.
Why are you defending them?

>>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine to
>>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>their
>>calling methods.

> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
> constitutes harassment in your state?

Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly annoying
someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
anonymous hangup calls?

>>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>Verizon's
>>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>Finally,
>>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN, the
>>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover that
>>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>"do
>>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>
>>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>expenses
>>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>Verizon under any circumstances.

> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?

It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
harassing calls.
WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
suspect?

In article <ww8yh.27402$Xq6.19915@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote:

> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
> news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
> >>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
> >>
> >>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
> >>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
> >>still
> >>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
> >>customer,
>
> > Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>
> There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it....

Then either create one or don't post it to an inappropriate newsgroup..



--Mike

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:56 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>>
>>>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>>still
>>>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>>customer,
>
>> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>
>There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
>If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
>customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
>customers and the public in general? People should be warned.

As a former VZW customer of 10+ years, I never had an issue with them
calling me for anything.

>Why are you defending them?

I'm not. You're just one of those types who will call anyone a
"SHILL" who finds holes in your argument. You ought to be thanking us
for educating you.

>>>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine to
>>>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>>their
>>>calling methods.
>
>> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
>> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
>> constitutes harassment in your state?
>
>Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly annoying
>someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
>anonymous hangup calls?

Again I say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters
is your state's laws.

>>>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>>Verizon's
>>>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>>Finally,
>>>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN, the
>>>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover that
>>>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>>"do
>>>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>>
>>>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>>expenses
>>>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>>Verizon under any circumstances.
>
>> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?
>
>It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
>harassing calls.

What? The law that was written to control unwanted telemarketing
calls "doesn't matter"? You really ought to do your research before
you post silly rants.

>WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
>suspect?
>

Please point out one instance where I "defended" anyone. All I did
was point out:

1. You posted your rant to an unrelated group (again).
2. You have to prove harassment in accordance with applicable law.
3. You obviously didn't read the "existing business relationship"
clause of the Federal DNC law.

And it would seem you are the same douchebag that posted a bitch rant
here in July about getting charged for a 411 call (which you never
paid for anyways). Perhaps you should just drop your telephone
service. It seems a bit too complicated for you to understand.

Ref. http://tinyurl.com/ytetvw

The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:56 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>> news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>>> deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>>>
>>>> The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>>> telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>>> still
>>>> am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>>> customer,
>>> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>> There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
>> If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
>> customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
>> customers and the public in general? People should be warned.
>
> As a former VZW customer of 10+ years, I never had an issue with them
> calling me for anything.
>
>> Why are you defending them?
>
> I'm not. You're just one of those types who will call anyone a
> "SHILL" who finds holes in your argument. You ought to be thanking us
> for educating you.
>
>>>> so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>>> contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>>> hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine to
>>>> record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>>> constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>>> their
>>>> calling methods.
>>> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
>>> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
>>> constitutes harassment in your state?
>> Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly annoying
>> someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
>> anonymous hangup calls?
>
> Again I say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters
> is your state's laws.
>
>>>> I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>>> Verizon's
>>>> "do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>>> Finally,
>>>> the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN, the
>>>> same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>>> customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover that
>>>> Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>>> called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>>> "do
>>>> not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>>>
>>>> I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>>> 1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>>> disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>>> 2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>>> expenses
>>>> incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>>> 3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>>> Verizon under any circumstances.
>>> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?
>> It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
>> harassing calls.
>
> What? The law that was written to control unwanted telemarketing
> calls "doesn't matter"? You really ought to do your research before
> you post silly rants.
>
>> WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
>> suspect?
>>
>
> Please point out one instance where I "defended" anyone. All I did
> was point out:
>
> 1. You posted your rant to an unrelated group (again).
> 2. You have to prove harassment in accordance with applicable law.
> 3. You obviously didn't read the "existing business relationship"
> clause of the Federal DNC law.
>
> And it would seem you are the same douchebag that posted a bitch rant
> here in July about getting charged for a 411 call (which you never
> paid for anyways). Perhaps you should just drop your telephone
> service. It seems a bit too complicated for you to understand.
>
> Ref. http://tinyurl.com/ytetvw
>
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:38:37 GMT, "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net"
<kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.
>

In all fairness, it was never intended for the phone companies to have
a role in this matter. The FCC has a complaint process in place (you
may rightfully argue its effectiveness), and you may be able to pursue
civil remedies against the offender.

From:
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html

Actions You Can Take Against Telephone Solicitation Calls Made in
Violation of the Rules

You have recourse against entities or persons who continue to call you
after you have requested to be placed on a "do not call" list.

Some states permit you to file law suits against violators; you may be
awarded $500 in damages or actual monetary loss, whichever is greater.
This amount may be tripled if you are able to show that the caller
willfully and knowingly violated do-not-call requirements.

States themselves may initiate a civil suit in federal district court
against any person or entity that engages in a pattern or practice of
violations of the TCPA or FCC rules. If you have questions for your
state regarding unsolicited telephone marketing calls, you may contact
your local or state consumer protection office or your state Attorney
General’s office. These numbers should be listed in the government
section of your telephone directory, or you can obtain them by calling
directory assistance.

What the FCC Can Do to Help

While the FCC may not award monetary or other damages, it can issue
citations or impose fines against those violating the TCPA or other
FCC rules regarding unsolicited telephone marketing calls.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:41:45 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
<ghost@general.lee> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:38:37 GMT, "kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net"
><kevinkeithweaver1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>In all fairness, it was never intended for the phone companies to have
>a role in this matter. The FCC has a complaint process in place (you
>may rightfully argue its effectiveness), and you may be able to pursue
>civil remedies against the offender.
>
>From:
>http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/tcpa.html
>
>Actions You Can Take Against Telephone Solicitation Calls Made in
>Violation of the Rules
>
>You have recourse against entities or persons who continue to call you
>after you have requested to be placed on a "do not call" list.
>
>Some states permit you to file law suits against violators; you may be
>awarded $500 in damages or actual monetary loss, whichever is greater.
>This amount may be tripled if you are able to show that the caller
>willfully and knowingly violated do-not-call requirements.
>
>States themselves may initiate a civil suit in federal district court
>against any person or entity that engages in a pattern or practice of
>violations of the TCPA or FCC rules. If you have questions for your
>state regarding unsolicited telephone marketing calls, you may contact
>your local or state consumer protection office or your state Attorney
>General’s office. These numbers should be listed in the government
>section of your telephone directory, or you can obtain them by calling
>directory assistance.
>
>What the FCC Can Do to Help
>
>While the FCC may not award monetary or other damages, it can issue
>citations or impose fines against those violating the TCPA or other
>FCC rules regarding unsolicited telephone marketing calls.

Everyone needs to quit complaining and figure out a way to have
automatic dialers exempt the numbers on the Do Not Call list. If you
come up with it, please contact me. I'd like to share in the profits!!

kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net wrote:

>>
> 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.

You need to do a little reading. It is not up up to the local phone
company to do anything related to the do not call laws.

I have found the do not call laws to be a really good thing. Before the
law we would get at least 2 (and usually more) calls each day. After the
law kicked in it went down to 1 per *year*.

>
> 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.
>
>
>

SloPe7@excite.com wrote:
>
>
> Everyone needs to quit complaining and figure out a way to have
> automatic dialers exempt the numbers on the Do Not Call list. If you
> come up with it, please contact me. I'd like to share in the profits!!

I am not complaining because the do not call list actually works.

What you suggest is a requirement of the law. Telemarketers are required
to get a copy of the numbers on the do not call list and filter them
from their lists.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:42:42 -0500, SloPe7@excite.com wrote:

>Everyone needs to quit complaining and figure out a way to have
>automatic dialers exempt the numbers on the Do Not Call list. If you
>come up with it, please contact me. I'd like to share in the profits!!

I'd love to see ADE and predictive dialing outlawed completely.

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in news:6F7yh.545607$Fi1.352609
@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> (309-820-9933)

Invalid phone number....

Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D0AE8155FE9noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in news:6F7yh.545607$Fi1.352609
> @bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> (309-820-9933)
>
> Invalid phone number....
>
> Larry

I got the number from *69, and it worked for me, connecting me to Verizon.
If you dialed it correctly, perhaps they have a block on any calls coming
from numbers not on their customers to call list.

> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

Very good!

"Michael Wise" <no@no.spam> wrote in message
news:no-E5F73B.16070906022007@news.easynews.com...
> In article <ww8yh.27402$Xq6.19915@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote:
>
>> "The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>> news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>> >>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>> >>
>> >>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>> >>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>> >>still
>> >>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>> >>customer,
>>
>> > Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>>
>> There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it....
>
> Then either create one or don't post it to an inappropriate newsgroup..
>
> --Mike

Mike, if it's about Verizon, it IS on topic here. All of Verizon's customers
have a right to know other customers' opinions, and to communicate freely
here.

"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
news:k57is2poknkqlum6r6e9bmhpfmftlkhtf3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:56 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>>>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>>>
>>>>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>>>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>>>still
>>>>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>>>customer,
>>
>>> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>>
>>There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
>>If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
>>customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
>>customers and the public in general? People should be warned.
>
> As a former VZW customer of 10+ years, I never had an issue with them
> calling me for anything.
>
>>Why are you defending them?
>
> I'm not. You're just one of those types who will call anyone a
> "SHILL" who finds holes in your argument. You ought to be thanking us
> for educating you.

WHAT holes have you found? There are none. I made no argument; I simply
reported my experiences with Verizon here, and you saw fit to make it into
an argument. I am fully justified in questioning your motives for doing so.

So again, as you didn't answer the first time, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THEM?

>>>>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>>>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>>>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine
>>>>to
>>>>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>>>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>>>their
>>>>calling methods.
>>
>>> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
>>> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
>>> constitutes harassment in your state?
>>
>>Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly
>>annoying
>>someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
>>anonymous hangup calls?
>
> Again I say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters
> is your state's laws.

Fine. As I understand the relevant laws, repeated telemarketing calls that
one considers harrassive, especially after being on record with the calling
party as NOT WANTING such calls, are ILLEGAL. But big, monopolistic
corpserations like Verizon have no problem flouting the law when, even if
penalized, they have a net profit in doing so.

>>>>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>>>Verizon's
>>>>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>>>Finally,
>>>>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN,
>>>>the
>>>>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>>>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover
>>>>that
>>>>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>>>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>>>"do
>>>>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>>>
>>>>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>>>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>>>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>>>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>>>expenses
>>>>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>>>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>>>Verizon under any circumstances.
>>
>>> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?
>>
>>It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
>>harassing calls.
>
> What? The law that was written to control unwanted telemarketing
> calls "doesn't matter"? You really ought to do your research before
> you post silly rants.

"Silly rants." Typical ad-hominem attack from a defender of the
indefensible, and one that has yet to explain why he is defending the guilty
party in question, but indicates that he is not a shill whose job is to do
just that.

>>WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
>>suspect?
>
> Please point out one instance where I "defended" anyone. All I did
> was point out:
>
> 1. You posted your rant to an unrelated group (again).

Not a rant, a legitimate complaint on a RELEVANT newsgroup - about Verizon.

> 2. You have to prove harassment in accordance with applicable law.

I'll let the FCC and other appropriate agencies determine that, based on my
complaints.

> 3. You obviously didn't read the "existing business relationship"
> clause of the Federal DNC law.

That allows telemarketing calls to a party you are already doing business
with, but when that party specifically expresses the desire to be LEFT ALONE
and NOT CALLED, the caller is obligated to obey that wish.

> And it would seem you are the same douchebag that posted a bitch rant
> here in July about getting charged for a 411 call (which you never
> paid for anyways). Perhaps you should just drop your telephone
> service. It seems a bit too complicated for you to understand.

Ah, "douchebag." True gentleman you are, and so rational too!
And you have access to my past complaint as well - interesting!
You have now shown beyond reasonable doubt that you are most likely a SHILL,
working for Verizon, and probably specifically assigned to counter
complaints against them posted to the Internet.

Some people will even sell their soul if the price is right - -
Hope you sleep well at night.
If Verizon cans you for being so ineffectual here, you can always get a job
with the CIA. I'm sure you would fit right in!

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98D0AE8155FE9noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in news:6F7yh.545607$Fi1.352609
> @bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> (309-820-9933)
>
> Invalid phone number....

I got the number from *69, and it worked for me, connecting me to Verizon.
If you dialed it correctly, perhaps they have a block on any calls coming
from numbers not on their customers to call list.

> Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
> Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

Very good!

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
news:bltyh.32613$Xq6.10246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<SNIP>
Here's how it works. Companies you DO NOT want to do business with are
placed on the DNC. If they call again, they can be fined.
Non-profits, companies you ALREADY have dealings with are EXEMPT. Your home
phone service is provided by Verizon, therefore you have an ONGOING business
relationship with them They are therefore EXEMPT.

--
Andrew D. Sisson

SonyEricsson W300i CINGULAR NATION SINCE MARCH 2006

"Andy S" <adsisson@NOSPAMrochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45ca695a$0$5227$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in message
> news:bltyh.32613$Xq6.10246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <SNIP>
> Here's how it works. Companies you DO NOT want to do business with are
> placed on the DNC. If they call again, they can be fined.
> Non-profits, companies you ALREADY have dealings with are EXEMPT. Your
> home phone service is provided by Verizon, therefore you have an ONGOING
> business relationship with them They are therefore EXEMPT.
>
> --
> Andrew D. Sisson
-----------------------
Thanks for the information, but I would have to read all the relevant laws
in depth to know if this is true for certain and in my circumstances.
Regardless, if a company you do business with disregards your specific
request to be left alone, that is inexcusable.

I demanded to be put on Verizon's internal do not call list about three
years ago, and never asked to be taken off it. Still, their calls, often
hangup due to the nature of their calling system, have resumed. I told them
three years ago I considered such calls to be harassment and that they
should change their methods to avoid the hangups as well. They ignored this
advice, preferring in the interests of maximum profit to continue to
effectively harrass people.

I will always oppose the arrogance and the lack of common courtesy of such
greedy, monopolistic companies as Verizon is. We pay them for services, not
to be repeatedly annoyed by them when we express the desire to be left
alone.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:33:27 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
wrote:

>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>news:k57is2poknkqlum6r6e9bmhpfmftlkhtf3@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 23:51:56 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"The Ghost of General Lee" <ghost@general.lee> wrote in message
>>>news:713is21mpobu205qmjl7hcb0rhghn8nn59@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:52:50 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Approximately 3 years ago I had a problem with what appeared to be
>>>>>deliberate harassment hang-up calls to my home (landline) phone number.
>>>>>
>>>>>The calls were found to be from Verizon, and were being made for
>>>>>telemarketing purposes. I received these calls even though I was, and
>>>>>still
>>>>>am, on the state telemarketing "do not call" list. I am a Verizon
>>>>>customer,
>>>
>>>> Yet, you posted this to a Verizon *Wireless* group.
>>>
>>>There is no land-line newsgroup on which to post it.
>>>If Verizon commits these harassive/abusive practices with landline
>>>customers, do you really believe they are not behaving similarly with ALL
>>>customers and the public in general? People should be warned.
>>
>> As a former VZW customer of 10+ years, I never had an issue with them
>> calling me for anything.
>>
>>>Why are you defending them?
>>
>> I'm not. You're just one of those types who will call anyone a
>> "SHILL" who finds holes in your argument. You ought to be thanking us
>> for educating you.
>
>WHAT holes have you found? There are none. I made no argument; I simply
>reported my experiences with Verizon here, and you saw fit to make it into
>an argument. I am fully justified in questioning your motives for doing so.

You claim harassment, yet make no mention of pursuing harassment
charges in state court. You are hell bent to go the FCC complaint
route, which obviously doesn't apply here because of the pre-existing
business relationship. As another poster put it in your last
embarrassment here, you just tilt at windmills.

>So again, as you didn't answer the first time, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING THEM?

I'm still waiting for you to point out an instance of "defending"
them. What's wrong, can't do it? Calling you on your stupidity does
not equate to defending anyone.

>>>>>so they may have been entitled to call me for business purposes. When
>>>>>contacted, Verizon told me that their computer makes the calls and then
>>>>>hangs up under certain circumstances, thus causing my answering machine
>>>>>to
>>>>>record no message. This was happening a few times a day, and clearly
>>>>>constituted HARASSMENT. I told them this, and that they should change
>>>>>their
>>>>>calling methods.
>>>
>>>> Just because you think it is harassment doesn't make it so. What
>>>> matters is your state's laws. Did you bother to research what
>>>> constitutes harassment in your state?
>>>
>>>Deliberate, repeated hangup calls are clearly annoying. Repeatedly
>>>annoying
>>>someone constitutes harassment. Wouldn't YOU think so if YOU received
>>>anonymous hangup calls?
>>
>> Again I say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. All that matters
>> is your state's laws.
>
>Fine. As I understand the relevant laws, repeated telemarketing calls that
>one considers harrassive, especially after being on record with the calling
>party as NOT WANTING such calls, are ILLEGAL. But big, monopolistic
>corpserations like Verizon have no problem flouting the law when, even if
>penalized, they have a net profit in doing so.

There you go with that "one considers harassment" line again. Just
because you think it is doesn't make it so in the eyes of the law.
Have you bothered to research your state's laws concerning harassment
and how to deal with it? If so, what are the applicable sections of
code? If not, what are you waiting for? And if you feel like they'll
still profit from their actions after being penalized, why are you
even bothering with it?

>>>>>I demanded that the calls stop, and was told I would be placed on
>>>>>Verizon's
>>>>>"do not call" list, but that it would take a few weeks to do this.
>>>>>Finally,
>>>>>the hang-up calls stopped. However, THESE CALLS RECENTLY BEGAN AGAIN,
>>>>>the
>>>>>same as the last time, despite my supposedly being on their list of
>>>>>customers NOT to be called. Today I used the *69 service to discover
>>>>>that
>>>>>Verizon (309-820-9933) was again the source of these unwanted calls. I
>>>>>called this source number, and again was told I would be placed on their
>>>>>"do
>>>>>not call" list and it would take some time for this to be in effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I HAVE FILED A COMPLAINT WITH THE FCC for the purposes of:
>>>>>1) Punishing this arrogant corperation for its repeated harassment and
>>>>>disregard for and invasion of my privacy.
>>>>>2) Assuring I will NOT be charged for my call to *69 and any other
>>>>>expenses
>>>>>incurred as a result of Verizon's actions.
>>>>>3) Assuring that I will NEVER receive another telemarketing call from
>>>>>Verizon under any circumstances.
>>>
>>>> You didn't read the Federal DNC law very well, did you?
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter - people have the right to freedom from unwanted,
>>>harassing calls.
>>
>> What? The law that was written to control unwanted telemarketing
>> calls "doesn't matter"? You really ought to do your research before
>> you post silly rants.
>
>"Silly rants." Typical ad-hominem attack from a defender of the
>indefensible, and one that has yet to explain why he is defending the guilty
>party in question, but indicates that he is not a shill whose job is to do
>just that.

Yeah, it's a silly rant, much like your "the government was behind the
9/11 attacks" stupidness.

>>>WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING VERIZON? An employee? - more likely an executive, I
>>>suspect?
>>
>> Please point out one instance where I "defended" anyone. All I did
>> was point out:
>>
>> 1. You posted your rant to an unrelated group (again).
>
>Not a rant, a legitimate complaint on a RELEVANT newsgroup - about Verizon.

What part of 'cellular' do you not understand? And I won't even waste
my time pointing out the legal differences between calling a landline
versus a cellular line. Obviously, the point would be lost on your
trollish mind.

>> 2. You have to prove harassment in accordance with applicable law.
>
>I'll let the FCC and other appropriate agencies determine that, based on my
>complaints.

They'll deem your complaint invalid and dismiss it. It's not their
fault you handle things the wrong way. The FCC doesn't investigate
harassment. That's a state crime. Deal with it the right way and
piss off already.

>> 3. You obviously didn't read the "existing business relationship"
>> clause of the Federal DNC law.
>
>That allows telemarketing calls to a party you are already doing business
>with, but when that party specifically expresses the desire to be LEFT ALONE
>and NOT CALLED, the caller is obligated to obey that wish.

True, but considering your past history here, how do we know you're
telling the truth about any of this? Your credibility here is pretty
well shot. You've been given sound advice as to how to proceed, but
you insist on fighting in this group. You hear that dinging sound?
That's Verizon winning round after round. Again. Just how much of
your time have you wasted with this matter up until now? And how much
more are you willing to waste to show no results?

>> And it would seem you are the same douchebag that posted a bitch rant
>> here in July about getting charged for a 411 call (which you never
>> paid for anyways). Perhaps you should just drop your telephone
>> service. It seems a bit too complicated for you to understand.
>
>Ah, "douchebag." True gentleman you are, and so rational too!

Well, if the douchebag fits...

It seems you were soundly chastised here for bitching about a
non-issue last year. Why should we believe this is any different?

>And you have access to my past complaint as well - interesting!

Yes, access to Google Groups is restricted on a "need to know basis."
Please tell me you aren't this stupid in real life. Oh, wait,
considering what issues you waste your time complaining about, you
probably are.

>You have now shown beyond reasonable doubt that you are most likely a SHILL,
>working for Verizon, and probably specifically assigned to counter
>complaints against them posted to the Internet.

And there's the much anticipated "SHILL" accusation. Just because you
can't figure out how life works doesn't give you free reign to bitch
and moan and make baseless accusations. You've worked hard to earn
the name 'douchebag'. Enjoy it!

>Some people will even sell their soul if the price is right - -
>Hope you sleep well at night.
>If Verizon cans you for being so ineffectual here, you can always get a job
>with the CIA. I'm sure you would fit right in!

If anyone wants to see how big of a nut case this guy is, check his
posting activity on Google Groups, especially in the conspiracy
groups. I suspect he's a pothead, too, which would explain his
paranoia.

Seriously, put down the bong for a while until you come to your
senses.

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in
news:JOsyh.32473$Xq6.11356@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> I got the number from *69, and it worked for me, connecting me to
> Verizon. If you dialed it correctly, perhaps they have a block on any
> calls coming from numbers not on their customers to call list.
>
>

May be internal. I called them from Skype.

Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in
news:bltyh.32613$Xq6.10246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> So again, as you didn't answer the first time, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING
> THEM?
>
>

General Lee always defends them...the defendants...(c;

Be careful or he'll threaten you, next.


Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote in
news:h5qks21lg6818brbkfc0q87g0lqt0k29ge@4ax.com:

> Subject: Re: Clueless nitwit still bitching about nothing
> From: The Ghost of General Lee <ghost@general.lee>
>

See? I told ya he'd start hacking away at you with his ax....

Larry
--
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for dinner.
Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:00:49 -0500, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

>"Freedom Fighter" <liberty@once.net> wrote in
>news:bltyh.32613$Xq6.10246@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>> So again, as you didn't answer the first time, WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING<