Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No but there should be.

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are correct, see below referencing Article X of Bill of Rights. This would be a states issue. I know the state I live in has a "no call list." Of course it has the same problems that I mentioned earlier as far as needing maintenance, and Megacorps being able to buy their way off this list. Never the less, as far as Constitutionality, the state's laws are far more acceptable.

Mathias Ice

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What the framers of the U.S. Constitution were worried about was limiting the size of the Federal government. Of course this fact has been all but ignored by both major political parties in the United States. As far as a right to privacy, a reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals no stated "right to privacy." This so-called right comes from Supreme Court judges deciding that Article IV of the Bill of Rights which states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I don't see "right to privacy" in that. But then again when you have Supreme Court judges who believe the U.S. Constitution should be discarded, insist on imposing a "seperation of church and state" (definitalty NOT in th U.S. Constitution,) and consistently ignore Article X of the Bill of Rights which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," what do you expect?

Mathias Ice</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The space between the two lines would indicate two statements. The second made no mention
of the constitution. American law is based on precedent, which has its power rooted firmly
within the supreme court. And the court usually leans towards the will of the people as opposed
to the will of business.

I for one rely heavily on my message recordings. I do not like the fact that I have to sift past 20
adds before I can reach a message that I need to answer so that I can continue to make money.
I also do no like picking the phone up only to hear a machine make a guess on weather I am
there in person or just a machine. And I hate the lying scumbag sales people who pretend that
someone I know referred them to me or try to convince me that I really need to have their card
in my wallet. Hey I sent out lots of post cards to help get this passed. You want to advertise so
that I see it? Then go buy some time on the tube or a piece of a page in the post. You can
even send me some mail. But you won’t be using the lowbuck phone call system any more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

By the way, how does this grow the Feds? They will have a net loss if the system works. Do
you have any idea how many complaints they have to field about phone solicitations? I guess its
back to the 1-900 scams for the phone banks now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

Oh, I'm not against having laws against telemarketing; I'm just against federal laws for such things. The Constitution/Bill of Rights does not specifically empower the federal government to deal with the matter, and Article X indeed reserves that right to the states. If each state wants to ban it, fine. If a telemarketer wants to call long-distance to get around it, that's a waste of their money, and not many will.

I would note that I'm opposed to the current trend of amending state constitutions by popular vote to pass legislation which hasn't made it through the legislature (in relation to this topic, constitutionally mandating a do-not-call list). Constitutions are not made to be flexible enough to deal with legislative issues, especially issues with fiscal impacts (IOW, almost all of them).

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is not even the point. The question is what gives your company the right to use the telephone service that I pay for to harrass me with calls I did not ask for and do not want.

Unsolicited telemarketting calls should be illegal by default. If telelmarketers want to use my phone to make me offers I did not ask for then they should pay my phone bill. Give us the option to sign up for free phone service that is supported by the advertising revenues. Those that choose to get their phone for free will be the only ones that have to tolerate the calls. It would work the same way as television. I don't pay for broadcast tv. I have to put up with ads to get it free. I buy cable and I get lots of ad free channels.

The same should work for email spam and popup ads. If the vultures want the right to bombard me with their insipid ads they should pay for my Online service and email. If I don't mind the ads I'll get my service free. If I don't want the ads I will pay for my ISP service.

I think it's flat wrong that to get the calls to stop I have to go out of my way and sign up for a do not call list. They should need my permission in advance to call me, not the other way around.

Geoschmo

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

How much does telemarketing drive up your phone service rates? Don't telemarketers pay for their own phone service, too (multiple-line rates, at that), and the right to use it? Following that logic, you should be charged to call anyone, for using the phone service they paid for. Remember, you're paying for the right to send and receive phone calls. See if your phone company has a plan which doesn't let anyone call you but lets you call out if it really bothers you.

Again, if you don't mind taking thirty seconds and they don't take advantage of your courtesy, you can stop them and get your name removed. If they take advantage of it, you can hang up on them. Few people are truly that inconvenienced by the loss of thirty seconds--and they wouldn't have called it an inconvenience if it were a call from a friend or a relative, although they can't know the difference until after they stop what they're doing to answer the phone and the call would likely Last much longer than thirty seconds. (Is the inconvenience having to stop what you're doing, or is it talking to someone you don't know?) If someone really is bothered by the loss of that time, they can 1)take the phone off the hook/turn the ringer off until they're done with their important business, or 2)disconnect their phone service.

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think anyone suggested it was driving up our phone rates. (although I wonder how many would object if they started calling you on your cell phone in which you pay for incomming calls) The bottom line is that many people find telemarketers intensely annoying. Frankly they are often extremely rude and can really get me upset. The loss of 30 seconds is not the problem. I should not have to do things like make my phone number unlisted or take my phone off the hook and thus miss the calls that I want just to get them to stop.

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here here! I fully agree. They almost render the phone service unusable. Like someone else said, if they want to offer something, buy time somewhere and place adds there. Not on a service a lot of people use every day. We didn't ask to be harassed.

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

Anyone every heard the sound clip "one angry brit" on www.heavy.com? I'd post a link if I could. Very funny clip on one guys reaction to a unsolicited phone call. hehe

Re: OT - No-Call list
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Woah! I'd like some of that! Where do I sign up?