Comments on: Don’t you dare call us Where media and technology meet Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bagwa Sat, 03 Dec 2011 14:07:44 +0000 I attempted to email Representative Lee but his website would not allow me to email him because my zip code is not in his area of representation.

By: sfgfan10 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 21:53:43 +0000 here’s an idea: come up with a script for a telemarketer call, and call the representative’s office repeatedly selling anything you can think up. If they try to get you to stop calling, tell them you thought their bill allowed it.

By: alignedinterest Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:32:38 +0000 @JohnTallarico

“still required to have express written consent”
The text here certainly seems to *allow* oral consent.

“modernize the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)”
The text here claims to update the Communications Act of 1934, which is precisely what the article above indicated.

“These calls are valued by consumers”
Given that I already receive relevant communications on my cellphone from reputable companies with my consent, there does not seem to be much need for further permission. Additionally, I also receive the occasional telemarketing call from companies with no business relationship. This happens in spite of the fact that my cellphone number is listed on the US Federal do not call list. Of course, these calls occur much less often than before the implementation of the do not call list.

Narrowing the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” certainly appears to be expanding opportunities for telemarketers.

The most charitable interpretation of this bill would be that it helps the telemarketers through unintended consequences.

By: TreeMcGee Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:10:57 +0000 @John: As I understand it, your definition of “time-sensitive consumer information” may include a credit card offer that “ends today!” I think proponents of this bill really need to consider the consumer backlash against those brands choosing this outlet. As an example imagine a telemarketing call to a Chicago US CST number reaching the phone owner traveling in Europe or Asia. That’s a high value customer who is going to write off your brand instantly once they are fully awake. Your bulleted list can be just as effectively communicated via email or managed via text initiated by the phone owner. Let the dialing-pumps remain a thing of the past and keep my line clear of unwanted calls.

NO on HR 3035!

By: rcd1160 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:48:23 +0000 Posted by JohnTallarico : give the Gov’t any chance to invade our privacy and business, banks, marketing etc. will take it that extra mile.
Mr. Abell makes the argument for most of us. We pay for this expensive service for our means of communication for whom we choose.
The Gov’t is quite unwilling to force a mandatory Opt in legislation for any electronic form of communication and until it does this measure needs to be defeated as quickly as possible.

By: LookshyLily Fri, 02 Dec 2011 02:32:21 +0000 We gripe about this and yet no one raises a stink over the program called CarrierIQ which is equipped on hundreds of thousands of smartphones, records ever keystroke you make (personal texts, passwords, data you sent to a mobile website that you thought was private because the website promised not to cache your cookies, credit card numbers, web searches, what apps you use and when) and then sends it indiscriminantly to manufacturers and programmers so that they can determine how people use their phones. And it can’t be disabled, so you can’t opt-out. Telemarketing protests equals fighting the wrong battle, in my opinion. We should be far more concerned with the complete disregard of personal privacy by cellphone manufacturers; instead, the focus is on telemarketers, those whom with caller ID we can completely ignore. My question is…. WHY?

By: auger Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:26:07 +0000 There are apps on most phones which adequately cover any ‘time sensitive ‘ communication in a much better environment than an outdated robo-call. Why is the congressman trying to reinvent the wheel by taking a giant step backwards?

By: OneOfTheSheep Thu, 01 Dec 2011 22:38:48 +0000 @JohnTallarico,

This article is a legitimate “heads up” to consumers that self-serving commercial interests are trying an “end run” around the expressed wished of “we, the people” via our elected “representatives”. It is a public service.

The tone of your words smack of some commercial interest motivating your disengenuious attempt to change the meaning of commonly used words and thoughts thus expressed.

Any bank with which I have an ongoing and genuine financial relationship can already call me on my cell phone (since that is my only phone) about “suspicious credit card activity”. Any airline with whom a flight is booked can call about “flight cancellations” (but seldom do).

My doctors’ offices routinely call to remind me of appointments (although I wish they would quit…I keep them on a “to do” list updated daily. No one need call to tell me my lights are out or my water is off. I KNOW! meaningful information as to specific service rerstoration is impossible to get when I call them.

On those rare occasions that a payment is not received by someone I deal with, they already contact me; either by mail or email. Never by telephone, unless it is someone upset about a genuine dispute that must be resolved either by Medicare or my credit card company. I don’t want these companies that prey on consumers by sending junk out and then billing you for it to be able to add telephone harassment to their current options of financial intimidation.

You’re either not the brightest light in the harbor, or you need to disclose why and on whose behalf you are posting on this subject here.

By: JohnTallarico Thu, 01 Dec 2011 21:13:09 +0000 While I certainly appreciate your passion, many of your statements are misleading, and quite frankly, inaccurate. HR 3035, the Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011, will modernize the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to allow for the delivery of time-sensitive consumer information to mobile devices, while continuing to protect wireless consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls. Under the provision, telemarketers are still required to have express written consent to contact a consumer on their mobile device.

The legislation includes meaningful changes such as exempting informational calls from the restriction on auto-dialer and pre-recorded voice calls to wireless numbers. These calls are valued by consumers because they proactively communicate timely and relevant communications that help consumers make information decisions regarding:
• suspicious credit card activity
• flight cancellations
• appointment reminders
• service outages and restorations
• past due payments

By: Stupidscript Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:30:12 +0000 @freyer: Lines 5 and 9 both read: “To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit informational calls to mobile telephone numbers, and for other purposes.” And remember that this AMENDS the original bill … so you need to do some cross-referencing to fully appreciate the significance of the proposed changes.