About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 23, 2011 4:48 AM. The previous post in this blog was U of O president canned!. The next post in this blog is Holiday 'dogs. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Quotation of the Week

"What politician in his right mind would support this?"

Comments (11)

I run Astersik on a box to filter my calls, good from bad and unknown, and optionally play the following message:

* * * it costs you one thousand dollars each time you cause my phone to ring. This recording will serve as notice that you understand these charges, and that you accept such charges, for further calls to this number. * * *

Current legislation, state and federal, is just too watered down, and caps recovery.

Would the following wording make it more difficult for me to try to collect on my verbal agreement(s)?

Replacement text for 47 U.S.C. 227(f)(1):

(1) IN GENERAL- No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State with respect to any subject matter regulated under this section, except for telephone solicitations.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3035:

That does not appear to be limited to mobile phone (robo)calls.

Call me, often. Robocallers are the best. If I successfully collect on the agreement(s) in court . . .

"What politician in his right mind would support this?"

Answer: Considering our current corporatocracy, most of them.

Schumer is a clown show and has been for years

What Langston said

Schumer is a clown show

Maybe, but did you take the trouble to read the first few words of the linked article, which indicate that Schumer is warning against the proposed bill? Are you saying you're in favor of unsolicited marketing robocalls to my cell phone?

Per the linked article: Do we really want to stop FedEx or UPS using modern technology to deliver your holiday gifts on time? Of course not, but that is what we heard at the hearing is one consequence of this 20-year old law.

No it isn't. If I want FedEx or UPS or anyone else to call me upon delivery, I can give them the phone number when I place the order. They don't know if it's a cell or landline phone; they just call whatever number I give them. And they're expected to use it only for that, per our current law. Which is the way things should stay.

What we really need is a comprehensive Federal policy like this, so that we aren't always playing catch-up as technology changes.

Do we have politicians with a "right mind"?

At what point does this marketing strategy backfire?

If Joe's Market is robo-calling my cell phone, potentially costing me money for each call he sends me, I'm going to get mad and refuse to shop there. Ditto for Vote For Mike or anybody else.

Apparently, the creeps who keep calling my cell phone from FL regarding my back pain -which I do not have, BTW- didn't get the memo.

Why would anyone need to support it? I've been getting calls for years.

Perhaps we will get some right (or left) minded politicians in the next auction cycle. Could happen.




Clicky Web Analytics