TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?

Re: Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?
27 Apr 2006 12:35:44 -0700

Robert Weller wrote:

> It would not surprise me
> that the US Congress, when it wrote the TCPA, would carve out some
> exemption for PACs.

I'm pretty sure it was announced that political calls are exempt from
the "no call" lists.

What I don't understand is why they called your cell phone. I thought
cell phones, hospital rooms, and nursing homes were explicitly blocked
by law from receiving such solicitation calls. Cell phones because
the owner must pay for received calls and obviously it's a burden for
sick people. (Didn't stop my mother from being bothered by calls made
by auto sequential dialers in the nursing home; I had to pull the
phone out.)

The people who make such solicitation calls obviously don't give a
damn. They know most consumers won't bother to record the necessary
information and register a complaint and even if they do, they'll get
a slap on the wrist or fight the complaint dragging it out.

I am flooded with such calls on election day. Indeed, I called the
local Party and they shrugged it off, saying they had no control over
it. I think both parties called but the Dems were worse. I hated the
pre-recorded messages from prominent politicians. BTW, when I used
1169, I got "111-111-1111" as the calling number, which apparently is a
VOIP line.

I was also flooded with union calls. My local union denied a
connection to the calls and refused to do anything about. They didn't
appreciate the nasty letter I wrote to the national union complaining;
the next election call volume was down.

The definition of "prior relationship" is stretched greatly by
callers. Some callers simply lie and claim "according to our
records, about ten years ago you did business with us and we just
wanted to check how you're doing". A company is allowed to sell your
name or share it with "affiliates" which could be just about anyone.

I was really mad at my bank for soliciting me at work to buy stock,
yet when they wrongly bounced a check of mine, they didn't bother to
call me to inquire. (They bounced it because it "looked funny"). I
had to repeatedly complain, but they did pay the penalties the
recipient passed on to me and gave me a letter admitting their error.


The no-call lists have significantly reduced nuisance calls at home,
and that's good.

But I must say I must no use for the scumbags who sell and program
'auto-dialers' since they obviously made no exception for nursing home
residents or cell phones.

I haven't had incoming calls to my cellphone, but then my own phone is
rarely on to receive them. But numerous people have complained about
them. Many people (like me) pay for minutes for incoming calls, so it
is grossly unfair to call someone.

It turned out in my area there was a boiler room of phone solicitors.
The owner whined he had to lay people off. Sorry, but I had no
sympathy for him or his laid off employees. The unwanted calls were
very disruptive to myself and my family; thank goodness we at least
have this new law.

Can anyone justify this practice?

[public replies, please}

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Cryderman, Charles: "Re: Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?"
Go to Previous message: DLR: "Re: Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?"
May be in reply to: Joshua Putnam: "Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?"
Next in thread: Cryderman, Charles: "Re: Who is 888-695-9405, and Why do They Keep Calling Me?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page