Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Is the Do-Not-Call list not working?

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:21:17 AM PDT

Readers increasingly fear that the Do-Not-Call Registry is losing its effectiveness as telemarketers come up with more and more tricks to avoid being penalized. A reader's recent experience left a trail back to one culprit -- his cable company, Charter Communications.

"I'm on the Do-Not-Call list, but in the last month or so I'm getting calls non-stop," the reader wrote. "What I'm really curious about is who are these call centers that ring my phone off the hook, never leave a message, and call four or five times a day when they start blanketing my number? Are they legit? Why do they not leave a message, and why do they call non-stop when you're obviously not going to talk to them? Who is hiring them? Have they found a legal way to get around the Do-Not-Call list, making it the phone equivalent of yes-you-can-spam for cold calls?"

The reader was getting so frustrated that he bought caller ID - at a $100 per year - so he could try to screen the calls. One of the telemarketers that kept calling him appeared to be in the 305 area code and was identified as "Publishers Dire" (for "Direct" perhaps) But another number blasting him with phone calls -- 888-438-2427 -- was more readily identifiable. It's Charter.

Given its recent attempt to let NebuAd display targeted ads on broadband customers' computers, we know Charter doesn't exactly put a high priority on customer privacy. And one of the big loopholes in the Do-Not-Call list system is that companies with whom you have an existing business relationship can call you. Of course, they are supposed take you off their telemarketing lists if you request it, but how can you do so if, as in the reader's case, they never even leave a message identifying themselves?

And this certainly has to make the reader wonder whether the Miami telemarketer and others who have been harassing him are also calling him either or Charter's behest or because Charter has sold them his number. "Since I am a Charter customer, I knew some of these calls are quasi-legal," the reader wrote. "Every few month Charter goes on a phone service for that telephone service that no one seems to want. It doesn't seem right that these call centers can keep doing this and I can do nothing about it. It just makes me curious if the Do-Not-Call list is going to be completely ineffective soon."

Who is messing with your privacy? Write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com and maybe we can make their actions a little more public.
< Threads of copyright abuse | The suspicious death of XP support >


Display: Sort:
Is the Do-Not-Call list not working? | 45 comments (45 topical) | Post A Comment
Ways around do not call[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:59:30 AM PDT

Even if you are on the do not call list people will try to sell to you. My favorite method that has been tried on me at least three times goes like this: You answer a call, the caller asks for Joe. You respond that there is no Joe at this number. Their response is something along the lines of - Wow, I have this great offer I need to talk to Joe about. Hey maybe you would be interested. What comes next I don't know because I hang up.

[ Reply to This ]


We've got a state Do-Not-Call as well[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by MrsPost on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:06:11 AM PDT

I will have to admit the calls have decreased since we signed up but there is a catch.

A lot of these telemarketers, especially the charities, all use the same outsource company for their solicitations. But you have to ask to be removed from each charity's list. They won't take you off completely. Which is a pain.

We get caller ID as part of our digital phone service. I won't pick up anything that says 'Private Caller'. If they won't tell me who they are, I don't want to talk to them. Invariably they don't leave a message.

We've also had the same issue with a company calling us repeatedly (thank you caller ID) and not leaving a message. If they do call when we're home, they get ignored. Obviously they're some kind of telemarketer disguised as a 'research company'.

I say that the do not call lists work, to a certain point. But as companies get more creative then we're back to our old methods of either blowing a whistle into the phone and/or hanging up as soon as they start their pitch. Obviously asking them to remove you from their list isn't going to work.



[ Reply to This ]


DNC lists are dying[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:06:57 PM PDT

The latest trend is using VOIP with spoofed or no Caller ID. I'm sure these cockroaches are stealing their internet/VOIP access, too, so what are you going to do to stop it? DNC complaints won't work in that case. They're so brazen they usually do leave robomessages of obviously scam nature, even on cellphones.

[ Reply to This ]


Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:03:21 PM PDT

If you listen to their pitch, you can identify the company that's spamming from the product they're trying to sell. And then if you're on the do-not-call list, you can nail the sons of bitches for it.

For example, if the "unknown caller" is pitching Diet Pepsi, go after Pepsi.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You assume too much[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:33:46 PM PDT

Most of these robomessages do not identify themselves or their supposed products and are of the "push X now for more info / to be taken off our list [= lie]" variety. I screen my calls and am on DNC lists precisely because such a high proportion are worthless. Don't call me; I'll call you.

These people and their tactics are the telephonic equivalent of spammers, selling generally worthless, fraudulent products, often from offshore beyond the reach of DNC lists. That's what I find when I look up the few identifying marks of a given message on google.

It's just the next front in the spam war. Spam via phone calls, thanks to good old cheap, hard-to-trace VOIP and plenty of cheap offshore labor.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Anonymous Jerk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM PDT

"You assume too much"? -- You should not be rude and insulting. I did nothing wrong and I said nothing wrong. I certainly did nothing to deserve your scorn.

I am referring to telemarketing calls. Nearly all of those I encounter are live; rarely do they leave a message. The most recent I got was earlier today, and about one second in the person at the other end said "Capital One". That's a credit card company, and bingo, I know on whose behalf I'm being spammed, regardless of whether they blocked Caller ID.

In fact, I can only recall two campaigns of spammy phone calls where messages were left if I wasn't there to take the call live.

The first of those was years ago, and consisted of a robot (an obviously synthesized voice) claiming that I had an "important message" from some person whose name sounded French. It left a number to call back and didn't explain anything about the nature of their business, including mentioning any products. In other words, it was fairly consistent with your description. (Needless to say, not knowing what business they wished to discuss and the calls being unsolicited, I neglected to actually dial the number provided. Since it was a robot, even if I answered live I got the same one-way spiel and then it hung up; there was no live human to ask questions of.)

The second, more recent, consisted of calls that left the beginning of a prerecorded sales pitch (but with a human-sounding voice) on my machine if I didn't answer it live, running into the machine's message length limit. That one clearly identified a company or product, though I can't recall which.

So of all the innumerable telemarketing calls I can ever recall receiving over many decades of life, there has been exactly one set of calls, all clearly from the same source and attempting to sell the same product, where the company advertising was completely unidentifiable without calling a number they left. In every other case, they either didn't block caller ID, did peddle an identifiable product or name the company trying to sell to me, or both.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Weird[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:18:40 PM PDT

Ironically, within a day or two of posting the above I got a robo-call from a new source.

This one also identified the product being peddled, though. So now there have been three robo-callers in oodles of years for me, and two of the three clearly identified what they were peddling.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Urggh[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM PDT

It's high time the rules were amended to disallow calls even from companies you DO have a business relationship with, except for calls explicitly related to existing business being transacted. Your bill is past due -- OK. Your order has been shipped -- OK. You bought our widgets, so you're eligible take advantage of our new SuperWidgets at a 10% discount! -- Not OK.

When I want a product, even from a company I've already done business with, I'll seek it out. Don't call me, I'll call you.

P.S. got woken up twice, at times about twenty minutes apart, by my cell phone ringing on my nightstand. Not my regular phone, my cell, so these calls probably cost me money. When I answered, both times all I heard was a periodic beep, like some sort of beacon pinging.

Anyone know what clowns are responsible for that particular bit of stupidity? I have no idea what they think they can sell me by simply beeping at me without mentioning any products or services of any kind at all...maybe it's Big Pharma trying to drum up sales for sedatives or something? :P

P.P.S. Which of the following is a car?
Silver, Bloodhound, Vermont, Pinscher, Pear, Peugeot

Got it, but it's kind of obscure. Might give others trouble. More obscure brands and suchlike (including Peugeot and lychee) might be better off avoided. We're trying to keep out bots, right? Not everyone with an IQ under 150 plus most nonnative speakers. :P

[ Reply to This ]



That sounds[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by sconeu on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:32:56 AM PDT

like a legit wrong number.  I think a fax machine was calling you.

----

Which of the following is a car?
Fiat, Navy, Vermont, Washington, Grape, Spaniel

Having owned a Fiat, I'd argue that none of them are :-)

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Business relationships[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM PDT

Actually, I like calls from businesses I deal with when they have something new. For instance, I've got Verizon and was frequently called about getting DSL (I have DSL, just not through them). Total irritation. But I was happy to be spammed when they finally got FIOS in our area! P.P.S. Which of the following is a car? Silver, Bloodhound, Vermont, Pinscher, Pear, Peugeot Which of the following is a car? Fiat, Navy, Vermont, Washington, Grape, Spaniel By the process of deduction, "Vermont" must be the car!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Exception that proves the rule[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM PDT

That sounds like the exception that proves the rule. Actually, given your interest in FIOS it seems likely that you might have periodically searched the web to find out if it had reached your area yet, anyway. Even if not, you could have.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I doubt it[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 05:12:33 PM PDT

I doubt it. Fax machines typically produce a complex buzz of electronic tones, not a simple pinging. I know, because I've gotten misdirected calls from faxen before.


[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Fax probe tones[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:52:34 AM PDT

Modern fax machines, when they call, emit a series of simple repetitive beeps called probe tones in order to "wake up" a fax machine on the receiving side. Then the receiving machine initiates the bizarre-sounding handshake sequence. This allows fax machines to share voice lines which used not to be possible. I agree with the previous poster: legitimate wrong number.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


No[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 10:17:00 PM PDT

According to your theory, the machine in question was configured to share the line with a human, but when I said "hello?" there was no answer. Ergo, it wasn't sharing the line with a human.

Now please stop implying that I was being dishonest earlier and let it drop.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You've got it backwards[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by sconeu on Sat Jul 19, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM PDT

They emit three beeps in case the *RECEIVING* line is sharing a fax machine.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You are a jerk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 21, 2008 at 07:36:34 AM PDT

I've got nothing backwards and I don't like people posting stuff whose very subject is insulting and accusatory.

Now mind your manners, young man!

You seem to be forgetting not only your manners, but also that the same call occurred twice in a row, about twenty minutes apart. Wrong numbers are one-offs. When they realize they dialed the wrong number, they dial a different one when they try again. Spammers are the ones that are often persistent and will generally spam you over and over and over again.

Now stop hassling me and get back to whatever you normally do.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Thin Skinned Jerk![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM PDT

I would normally simply note that we have all had a fax not go through and retried later. But you appear to be an exceptionally obtuse fool. You betray more of your ignorance and inability to learn with each post.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Jerk![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:55:34 AM PDT

Who are you, and why are you attacking a complete stranger by posting vicious and untrue insults in public?

Remember that we were discussing A SUPPOSED WRONG NUMBER. If you dial an unfamiliar number and don't get the expected response, you double-check the number. Only when you dial a familiar number that you have used many times before do you just automatically retry.

Now enough on the subject! If you MUST say something more, stick to the actual matter under discussion and leave personalities and personal attacks out of it. That sort of nonsense belongs locked up tight in your skull, not broadcast in a public forum for anyone to hear. Got it?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Wow.....[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM PDT

Have you thought about anger management training or medication?......

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


DNC list does work, but we do need to additions[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 02:44:58 AM PDT

The exemption for "companies you have done business with in the last 18 months" needs to be thrown out, and replaced with "companies that you are currently doing business with." They actually listen to you; once you are no longer a customer they feel freer to annoy you. There should also be an option to include charities and political campaigns. I know it was a free speech issue, but shouldn't I have the right to be close-minded and not listen to them? Another class of callers, that account for the largest group of unwanted calls I get, are bill collectors calling for previous users of my current phone number (at least 6 years ago at this point.) Apparently, they are lied to so often they don't believe that the person they are looking for wasn't any better about paying the phone company. They should at least be required to check if phone number has changed hands since the debt was incurred. == Which of the following is a dog? Melon, Chihuahua, Kia, Grapefruit, Mississippi, Saab I owned a Saab once, and it definitely was a dog. I've never considered Chihuahuas to be dogs.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What's the definition?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 06:49:39 AM PDT

... of "companies that you are currently doing business with"? If you make a purchase from a retail company, how can you define whether it's a one-time purchase so that there's no ongoing relationship, vs. the first in many upcoming transactions? Businesses need to know clearly when they're obeying and when they're breaking the law, so 18 months was selected as a reasonable balance point.

You have the right to be close-minded and not listen to charities and political campaigns; you don't have the right to prevent others from exercising their free-speech rights to talk into a dead line after you've hung up.

There is no constitutional right not to be offended, though some people seem to forget that. Being offended is (perhaps) a violation of civility, not of the law.

Which of the following is a color? MG, Purple, Bulldog, Cranberry, Corgi, Hawaii. Any designer will tell you that Cranberry is a valid answer along with Purple.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Nobody has free speech rights[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM PDT

if they are calling a phone line that I pay for.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Do Not Call Me[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by wabx on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:19:31 PM PDT

I've found an effective solution. As my telephone number is solicited from businesses with no good reason to have it, I don't give them the right one. The phone number of my previous residence is the one I give out the most often. My real number is unlisted, so that works pretty well. I've had, at most, two unsolicited calls since I put my real numbers in the Do Not Call Registry 18 months ago. This solution works for NYC, where I live. I also have a winter residence in Florida, and I don't fare as well there. My message tapes are always full when I go down there, and it's mostly sales calls. That makes it all the more fun to tell unwanted callers to '@!%$ Off' when I'm there to pick up their calls in person.

[ Reply to This ]


That's So Nice of You[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:31:45 AM PDT

That's really nice of you to give out telephone numbers of other people so they can get the telephone calls. It must make you feel good that others are being annoyed because of you. Why don't you have the gonads to tell the people who ask for your number that you don't want to give it to them?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Give out the wrong number[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM PDT

I like to give out the number of "Dial-A-Prayer."

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


That's a good number to give![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM PDT

That way nobody winds up being annoyed because some jerk didn't have the nerve to stand up for themselves and refuse the request for their number.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Time is Money[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by srynas on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:35:46 PM PDT

Keep on the line.  Say you are going to get whoever and leave then on-hold for a few minutes.  Ask them for their credit card information since they need to pay you for your time. etc.

[ Reply to This ]


Put them on hold[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by veritek on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 06:26:47 AM PDT

We get a lot of those recorded messages at our office. I always put the line on hold before I hang up. Ties up their line a lot longer than simply hanging up on them, and I personally wouldn't waste my time listening to their sales pitch.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I use an air horn[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:54:54 PM PDT

I tell them wait a second. Then I give them a blast from an air horn directly into the mouth piece. I then hang up. It seems to discourage callbacks. If it's an automated caller (you come to recongnise them by caller id or callbacks), they get the pickup-hold-hangup routine.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


It's only somewhat working[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:31:02 AM PDT

We are down from maybe 12+ calls per day to maybe 3-5 calls per day. I would prefer 0 calls per day. But charities and companies that you have bought something from and who want to sell you a maintenance contract continue to call. Not to mention that ATT has come to the door 3 times in the past month to sell U-Verse or whatever it is. And the "hail damage" scam artists also arrive on a regular basis at the door.

[ Reply to This ]


No! Wrong implication[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM PDT

I am the one who wrote Ed. I mentioned Charter ONLY to make the point that I was aware that people who had a legit business relationship could phone any time they wanted. Charter blitzes me with their phone service no one seems to want every few months. I'm fine with that. I did not, and never meant to, imply Charter was selling my number to others. My question was simply to find out if anyone knew who PUBLISHERS DIRE and all the others who call and don't leave a message actually are, and how they're getting around the DNC list. That was all. I never meant to imply foul play by Charter! I do not think they're leaking my phone number. There are several of these places that don't have a real caller ID and do not leave a message. Does anyone know who they are and what the story is?

[ Reply to This ]


Search for the company name and spoofed number[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 01:37:43 PM PDT

and you usually can find others who have reported the scam also... They are getting around the DNC list by actually not even caring about it. They have autodialers just dial numbers in sequence to hunt for humans. I worked in an open office where we had sequential numbers for our desk phones and you could hear the autodialer progress down the list such as dialing (999)555-2038,(999)555-2039, (999)555-2040, (999)555-2041, etc and each phone ringing after the other... These new tricks are probably using a computer generated autodialer on a VOIP phone system. Maybe this is some old info about your issue from my quick search on the internet: from http://www.payphone-directory.org/discussion/sub2old.html TOPIC - 423-926-0014 DATE - 08/14/07 16:17:09 FROM - johnboy268 I kept getting calls from 423-926-0014, it is a telemarketing firm which had the wrong number. Once I called them and told them the number they were calling was a childs phone they told me the name of the person they were trying to get in the next town from me where I got the phone last year. Apparently it was an old number of the person they were trying to contact. If you want to be removed from their list call them Publishers Direct Service, 1604 Lamons Ln Johnson City, TN 37604-8224 Phone: (423) 926-3711. A nice gentleman answered and said he would put my number on the DO NOT CALL LIST for their company. Caller: Publishers Direct Service Caller Type: Telemarketer

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Useful(?) resource[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 11:43:29 AM PDT

A few weeks ago, I came across the following Web site, a clearinghouse for information regarding unsolicited phone calls.

http://800notes.com/

Worth a shot...

[ Reply to This ]



Here's a partial fix ...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 12:48:06 PM PDT

... why doesn't some enterprising person simply create a device that goes between your phone and the line, and allows you to scroll through the caller ID calls and indicate which ones should never make your phone ring? You could also specify "No Private Callers" and actually indicate "between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. the only callers that can make my phone ring are X (my parents) and Y (my brother)".

I know this doesn't help with LOTs of random marketing calls, but if you have a handful who bother you repeatedly, this would take care of it.

Seems pretty simple. I didn't look to see if one is available, but if anyone knows about one, I'd buy one in a second.

P.S. If I created the device, I'd also allow a rule that played back a message for my blocked callers: "I'm sorry, but you have reached a number that is no longer in service."



[ Reply to This ]


GIYF[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM PDT

GIYF - http://www.privacycorps.com/products/?id=20

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


error[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Tinman on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:43:49 PM PDT

The second line should have said "when they call".
((((TINMAN))))
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Nice try[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM PDT

It is a discontinued product.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Call Screening Devices[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:53:18 AM PDT

Both of the following call screening devices have issues. Privacy Corps - Caller ID Manager (now discontinued) and JF Technical's - Ring Controller. If the devices are installed before your phone, either as an individual (single) phone or connected to service the whole house will not pass the caller ID information to your phone(s). That means you do not know who called. It seems to me that an enterprising individual or company could solve that issue. Or why doesn't our telecoms offer a feature to block "no name" - "no number" callers? They're the ones that really irk me.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Device[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by Tinman on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM PDT

There is such a device on the market. It's an answering machine that requires a code to proceed to the phone ringer. You give out the codes to your contacts so they can get through when you call. There's also another device called a TeleZapper. I have one of those. When a call is answered by me or the answering machine, three tone codes are played that tells them the "Number is not in service". Their automated system then drops your number from the calling list.
((((TINMAN))))
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Charter[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Tinman on Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 06:49:09 PM PDT

Interesting to note, I trace all spams and telemarketing calls and file reports. The majority of my spams came from Charter Communications at one point. Does this tell you something about Charter?
((((TINMAN))))
[ Reply to This ]


Flag last call[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 05:49:39 AM PDT

One method that could help reduce junk calls would be a way to flag the last call received as junk. You get a junk call, hang up, wait a couple seconds and pick up the phone and dial a code to flag the last call received as junk. There's already a code in some areas (*75) called call trace that does that, but the telco charges $5 per use, and will only release the info to police. We need a similar code that reports the call info to the FTC, and bills the originating telco/caller the $5 fee. This would have to be added to the law to get the telco's to comply, probably. It's not foolproof, but it's better than the (non-existing) enforcement methods in place now.

[ Reply to This ]


Cell phone spam calls[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jul 17, 2008 at 08:13:51 PM PDT

I keep getting these scum-bags on my cell trying to sell me an automobile "extended warranty since mine are nearing expiration...." on my 1985 and 1986 cars. Home tel has almost gone dead from these pests however due to the DNC list apparently working. It now needs to be extended to ALL telephone numbered devices. Anyone got enough money to buy a few congressmen to get this addition to the DNC list passed?

[ Reply to This ]


It's Already Illegal[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM PDT

All telemarketing calls to cell phones are already illegal. No need for new laws. As for enforcement,...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


DNC and FTC [ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 06:34:42 AM PDT

FYI, Beware: The chinese post above contains links to trojan horses. Please remove,Thanks. I once heard on late night talk radio, telemarketing spam referred to as "Amazing opportunities" (for us consumers). The talk was baldfaced sincere in it's presentation,(Woe is me). Ask some about the FTC and you'll get chapter and verse on their deceptive nature too. What's the number for dial-a-prayer?

[ Reply to This ]


Deleted[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#43)
by sconeu on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

I kill them as soon as I can get to them.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Is the Do-Not-Call list not working? | 45 comments (45 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
3 comments

Thank you
14 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
73 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
8 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
8 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
30 comments

More The Gripelog...

•Submit a gripe
•About the Author
•Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
7 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
18 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
33 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
54 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
33 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
18 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs
• Jon Udell 
• Kevin Railsback 
• Paul Venezia 
• Bob Lewis 
• Tom Yager 
• Ed Foster 
• Enterprise Mac 
• The Storage Network 
• Database Underground 
• Open Sources 
• Zero Day 
• InfoWorld Daily 
• Grid Meter 
• Real World SOA 
• SMB IT 
• IT Troubleshooter 

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
• Top News 
• Columnists 
• Tech Watch 
• Test Center Reviews 
• Applications 
• App Development 
• E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
• End-user Hardware 
• Networking 
• Operating Systems 
• Platforms 
• Security 
• Standards & Protocols 
• Storage 
• Telecommunications 
• Wireless 
• Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search