Annoy me Anonymously, Go to Jail → Re: do not call list was slippery slope to this....

Excuse me, but how does your idea of how your phone service should be used differ from using my computer, my internet service, that I pay for in my home to communicate with me? I didn't specifically ask for your response to this and I could see your response in the same unsolicited way that you see a telemarketers call. And yes I know that I posted in a public forum and doing so invites others to respond but that isn't much different than you having your phone number listed in a free public directory which has the connotation of inviting the public to call. My point is not a direct apples to apples comparison as it is one that when you limit one then you open the door to limiting all.

(disclaimer: if anyone takes my words too literally here, I don't see responses as unsolicited , just figured someone out there would pounce on that if not clarified)

It most certainly is different because discussions in public forums take place in public. Telephone conversations do not. Furthermore I have had unlisted and unpublished telephone numbers since I had my first phone and while that cut down on the number of spammers calling it didn't stop them all. And you know good and well that for most of the years technologies such as CID have been available they have failed to identify out of area spammer calls as such which has forced most people to answer so as not to miss calls from out of area friends and relatives or from their employers. Furthermore it goes without saying, ask most people why they publish their phone numbers and will tell you it is so that friends and family can easily find them and that it was never intended to be an open invitation for spammers or any other strangers to call. Use some common sense!

I am only quoting you on that one sentence as it is something the government lacks when dealing with laws such as this. There was no need for the dncl, common sense laws could have accomplished so much more than the restriction of freedom of speech and the slippery slope it creates that we are stuck with now.

1....make auto-dialers illegal (telemarketing should be about creating a personal rapport with the potential customer and not about machines calling)
2....only allow in-state telemarketing (want to do business elsewhere then open a branch office and contribute to the local economy...other industries are state regulated)
3....make recorded calls illegal (same reason as for #1)

Not only would that drive down the number of calls one receives but you would be talking to your neighbor down the street or the person at the corner store that you drive past everyday. I was in this industry for over two decades, manually dialing all calls (my one luxury was a phone book that went phone number order and a speed dial button to dial in the first three digits), called only for local businesses and well over 95% of people were receptive to my calls (that includes both people who were interested and those who weren't but the overwhelming majority were friendly, nice and polite to me).

I don't want to rehash that old debate here but my point is simply that there are common sense solutions that create a compromise and that don't silence those who have a right to freedoms such as freedom of speech while living in a country that promotes a free marketplace, advertising and competition within business. And its not just telemarketing that I am talking about, people complain about what's on tv or radio and expect it to be taken off of the air rather than simply changing the channel and finding something that suits them better. My point is that as long as we lack personal responsibility and ask the government to legislate what is appropriate for us rather than making that choice ourselves our freedoms will continue to be eroded. And even though you might not have a problem with me being put out of business because of laws like this, one day it could be you in that same predicament simply cause someone else decides they don't approve of what you do.

You are so so blind. You just don't get it at all. The government in this case did not legislate what was appropriate for us. They passed a law in response to overwhelming public demand to create a DO NOT CALL REGISTRY. I was not added to that registry against my will. I added myself to the registry. So how did they legislate what was appropriate for us? They didn't. They simply gave us what we demanded and that was to legislate what was inappropriate for YOU and we took advantage of it. You know this is true. It is why you went belly up after all.

Don't bother to respond. You are now on my ignore list with the rest of the spammers and trolls.

The supposed "overwhelming public demand" amounts to less than 20% of the population. That is where the total stands as to how many actually signed up for it.What you demanded was that the government be responsible for your phone line instead of you taking personal responsibility for it yourself. That creates a slippery slope that erodes freedoms if we ask the government to make decisions for us rather than making those decisions for ourselves. You cannot expect legislation to cure every pet peeve and trivial annoyance in life.This is a public forum, feel free to ignore me while I feel free to express my opinion.

Normally I just ignore your bullshit since it's fun to just watch everyone else wail on you, but it's been a slow day.Check that against the number of private, non-business phone numbers, not the total population. That's just stupid. One phone line does not one citizen equate. A phone call is not a random yelled greeting to any receptive persons in a park. And: you DO realise you did not solicit his response, and you aren't even paying to post to/read this board. He pays for his phone line, he damn well has every right not to want every Tom, Dick, and Harry be able to call it.Ignoring that, in fact, he has unlisted and unpublished numbers. Also ignoring that your right to use your service ends where his rights to use his service begins. An unlisted number means just that, don't call it if you don't know who it belongs to. Guess what? The law was changed to agree.That's what all the spammers say, but nobody has any sympathy for them. Malware is the telemarketing of the internet.

Why should any of these be illegal? Don't these fall under the same "freedom of speech" that you claim gives you the right to call people regardless of whether they want to be called? Why is manually calling someone "free speech", but using automated means not? Are we supposed to define free speech according to your personal preferences? Who died and put you in charge anyway?

I suppose that if we were on a list where compliance was voluntary, you and all your kind would have refrained from calling us out of the goodness of your hearts, right? Oh wait, I seem to remember that was actually attempted once. I remember the DMA kept their own list, and yes, I did write to them to have my name put on it. It worked about as well as a screen door on a submarine.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You and your beloved industry have only yourselves to blame.

It had been determined in a previous debate that the number of phone numbers is the same as the population (households with more than 1 line cancel out households with more than 1 person)and besides congressmen themselves seemed to want to interchange the two, by referring to it as people signed up rather than numbers. No matter which way you add it up, the amount signed up reflects less than 20% of all possible numbers and even within that amount it contains padding of that total with businesses erroneously signed up and cellphones that weren't receiving telemarketing calls to begin with included in the totals.