Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue here.
It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
portability.

Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon, or
are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?

I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
minutes I am going to go ballistic.

Later

Jeff


http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4795543.html

Last update: May 25, 2004 at 8:38 PM
Los Angeles Times: Directory of private cell-phone numbers will irk millions
May 26, 2004LATIMES0526
From an editorial in the Los Angeles Times:

There's wonderful news on the cell-phone front for telemarketers, spammers,
used-car salesmen and real estate agents.

Within months, an association of cellular and Internet communicators will be
selling a nationwide directory of private cell-phone numbers. Super news for
those feeling slighted and unrecognized in an impersonal world because they
weren't receiving their fair share of unsolicited telephone calls. Now you
can have such wireless encounters in meetings, movies, cars, restaurants,
bed.

Also, people need waste no more time deciding who gets cell access to them
and their monthly minutes. Everyone on the planet with 99 cents will be able
to find you anytime, anywhere. And you can pay for it.

Wait one darned message unit!

This is thoroughly dumb for consumers. Great for sellers of mass access, who
could gain an estimated $3 billion in fees and sold minutes by 2009. Also
great for telemarketers, who fear that millions more customers will go
totally wireless by canceling listed home phones.

But double-list this cell directory idea under S for stupid and U for
unnecessary. Praise be to Verizon Wireless, which vows not to dump its 39
million numbers into the database. That leaves 121 million of us.

This is an unintended consequence of allowing cell customers to transfer old
numbers to new service providers. When 30 million customers changed numbers
annually, there was no point to compiling a list.

Directory boosters, some no doubt with unlisted home phones, claim that
users will be able to opt in or out of a cell directory. Sounds super.

True, anyone can still use the federal Do Not Call Registry --
www.donotcall.gov -- which applies to "most telemarketers."

Key word here: most. Have you stopped getting unwanted e-mails or phone
calls? Would you like dozens of unsolicited, untraceable text messages or
pictures a day on your cell? Why pay next year for something you don't have
today and still don't want?

This is a privacy matter. The IRS could make millions selling information on
family incomes. It can't legally. You want to release your income, fine. You
needn't opt into privacy; it's there automatically, and free.

Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., seeks hearings on a law to bar listing or
nonlisting fees and force directories to get permission for each number. If
that's too expensive, good.

But publishing private info is also a control issue.

We're unable in modern America to opt out of or into so many things --
traffic jams, smog, pay raises, rent increases, rude passersby, tasteless
ads for beer and enhancements. We have few quiet refuges left. Two of them
are a private cell where we control the number and a shower where we control
the water.

Now, half of that's threatened.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Jeff" <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yHavc.38900$Ly.30640@attbi_s01...
> I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue here.
> It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
> portability.
>
> Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon, or
> are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?

While that editorial makes Verizon sound like angels, other articles have
talked about them 'exploring' a fee for not listing a number. Why do
something for free whenthey can make money at it.

>
> I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up
MY
> minutes I am going to go ballistic.
>

Telemarketers are prohibited by regulation from contacting cell phones. I
haven't seen anything that rescinds this.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:Q8SdnZ6THO5zpSDdRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
>
> "Jeff" <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yHavc.38900$Ly.30640@attbi_s01...
> > I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue
here.
> > It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
> > portability.
> >
> > Does anyone know if sprint is going to do the right thing like Verizon,
or
> > are they going to sell our numbers and names to telemarketers?
>
> While that editorial makes Verizon sound like angels, other articles have
> talked about them 'exploring' a fee for not listing a number. Why do
> something for free whenthey can make money at it.
>
> >
> > I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use
up
> MY
> > minutes I am going to go ballistic.
> >
>
> Telemarketers are prohibited by regulation from contacting cell phones. I
> haven't seen anything that rescinds this.

What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
becomes an attractive marketing technique.

Jeff

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jeff <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
> previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
> many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
> becomes an attractive marketing technique.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml

47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
incident if you receive such calls.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:mY2dnREqh6sJ0yDdRVn-ig@lmi.net...
> Jeff <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
> > previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
> > many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
> > becomes an attractive marketing technique.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml
>
> 47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
> law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
> to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
> calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
> incident if you receive such calls.
>
> --

Thanks, Steve- I couldn't remember which one it was.

BTW- a hand dialed telemarketing call is allowed under the law.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

>I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
>minutes I am going to go ballistic.

Keep in mind that elemarketers typically will auto-generate the numbers to
call. The machines they use generate the numbers sequentially and when the
number is dialed the machines can tell if someone answers and switches the call
to an inactive "agent".

No one has to sell these folks numbers, Machines I have seen can dial up to
10,000 numbers an hour.

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <20040602083504.06380.00000337@mb-m12.aol.com>,
sexyexotiche@aol.comspamfree (John S.) wrote:

> >I don't know about the rest of you but when telemarketers start to use up MY
> >minutes I am going to go ballistic.
>
> Keep in mind that elemarketers typically will auto-generate the numbers to
> call. The machines they use generate the numbers sequentially and when the
> number is dialed the machines can tell if someone answers and switches the
> call
> to an inactive "agent".
>
> No one has to sell these folks numbers, Machines I have seen can dial up to
> 10,000 numbers an hour.

and likely improving all the time. War dialers they used to be called,
as hackers would dial numbers to find which had modems on them. Set it
to run at bedtime, and have a long list of targets by the next morning.

Currently also used to identify FAX machines to SPAM.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Jeff wrote:

> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:Q8SdnZ6THO5zpSDdRVn-jg@adelphia.com...
>
>>"Jeff" <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:yHavc.38900$Ly.30640@attbi_s01...
>>
>>>I am somewhat surprised that I have not heard more about this issue
>
> here.
>
>>>It seems to me to be a upcoming problem. Here is the downside of number
>>>portability.

The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
better off without the law.

Actually, for the most part, the country is better off when congress is
in recess! They can't pass worthless laws and they can't spend money.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <V9kvc.35834$js4.33286@attbi_s51>,
Ray <rayindesmoines@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
> the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
> anything to the offenders.

Most of the spam that gets through Earthlink and my filters anymore
comes from Russia and Italy.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steven J Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:mY2dnREqh6sJ0yDdRVn-ig@lmi.net...
> Jeff <jeffc714@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What regulation would that be? I am unaware of any such regulation, the
> > previous "churn" in cell numbers made such a directory worthless with as
> > many as 30% of numbers changing yearly, now with number portability this
> > becomes an attractive marketing technique.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.shtml
>
> 47 USC 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, the same
> law that outlawed junk faxes. I'm not sure whether non-robodialed calls
> to devices where the recipient pays for the calls are outlawed. Robodialed
> calls to such devices definitely are and you can sue for up to $1500 per
> incident if you receive such calls.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP:
0xE3AE35ED
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
sjsobol@JustThe.net
> Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
> "someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out
and buy
> slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows
98/2000/2003

This seems to only apply to automatically dialed calls. I wonder if the
telemarketers will use humans to call.

Thanks for the information, it is one more arrow for my quiver when these
idiots start to call.

Jeff

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

> The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
> the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
> anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
> better off without the law.
>
> Actually, for the most part, the country is better off when congress is
> in recess! They can't pass worthless laws and they can't spend money.
>


But the government seems more than willing to pass laws that will make them
the strong arm of the RIAA. Wish I could have about $1,000,000,000 in
assets so I could get the goverment to be my play thing.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Ray <rayindesmoines@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The crooks won't pay any attention to the law. Look at how ineffective
> the can spam law has been. The incompetitant government isn't doing
> anything to the offenders. So far, I would have to say that we were
> better off without the law.

CAN-SPAM is a horrible, badly-written law. The TCPA actually works.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
Domain Names, $9.95/yr, 24x7 service: http://DomainNames.JustThe.net/
"someone once called me a sofa, but i didn't feel compelled to rush out and buy
slip covers." -adam brower * Hiroshima '45, Chernobyl '86, Windows 98/2000/2003