[klubneras]

And we all know which side of Congress this is coming from, don't we? Important messages we might miss! Very very urgent! And good news! We get to pay for the phone time as well! Cool beans.

Good to know the "We are not all about the rich and business over the concerns of regular people" Repubs are keeping their eyes on the important things as the economy dangles. [rolleyes]



http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_new...our-cell-phone

If you like getting those automated messages on your home phone, then you’re just going to love a proposal in Congress. The bill (H.R. 3035) would allow these “robo-calls” to your cell phone — even if you didn’t give a company permission to contact you at that number.

Supporters of the “Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011” include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Air Transport Association, as well as groups that represent bankers, mortgage lenders, college loan programs and debt collectors.

In a letter to Congress, they claim H.R. 3035 is needed to “modernize” existing law by enacting “limited common-sense revisions to facilitate the delivery of time-sensitive consumer information to mobile devices, while continuing to protect wireless consumers from unwanted telemarketing calls.”

They say robo-calls to cell phones would be used to alert you to food and drug recalls, data breaches, flight delays and appointment cancellations.

Howard Waltzman, an attorney representing the business groups supporting H.R. 3035, says this “non-marketing commercial information” is important to people. (which people would that be, I wonder?) He tells me the ability to make contact via a mobile phone is “critical” because so many people now use a wireless device as their primary or only means of phone communication. (Great. Voice mail spam)

“We have no interest in seeing this bill permit telemarketing calls,” Waltzman tells me.
“We would be perfectly fine with any clarification necessary to ensure that it doesn’t.”

(Read: Letter to Congress supporting H.R. 3035)

Consumer groups want Congress to kill the bill. They call it a dangerous proposal that could lead to more nuisance calls.

Delicia Reynolds, legislative director at the National Association of Consumer Advocates, tells me H.R. 3035 would “create potential chaos” because it would “open up everyone’s cell phone number without their consent.”

(Read: NACA letter opposing H.R. 3035)

The Attorneys General in every state also oppose the “Mobile Informational Call Act.” They believe it would erode your right to cell phone privacy. In a letter sent to Congress last week, they say H.R. 3035 would “undermine federal and state efforts to shield consumers from a flood of solicitation, marketing, debt collection and other unwanted calls and texts to their cell phones.”

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madgian, who is leading the charge against this bill, says these “informational” calls to cell phones could cost people who have a limited number of minutes to use each month.

This legislation would open the floodgates for telemarketers to annoy us with robo-calls to our cell phones at all hours of the day while forcing us to foot the bill,” Madigan said in news release. “It’s essentially a way for businesses to shift their advertising and marketing costs on to consumers.”

Critics are especially concerned that H.R. 3035 would let debt collectors (who are pushing this bill) contact people on their cell phones.

It’s estimated that by the end of this year about 25 percent of U.S. cell phone customers will use pre-paid wireless plans, where there’s a charge for every call received. Most prepaid users are in lower income households.

In their letter to Congress, the state attorneys general warn that if debt collectors are able to make robo-calls to cell phones it would “shift the cost of debt collection to the consumers and in particular, to those who can least afford it.”

Delicia Reynolds with the National Association of Consumer Advocates says debt collectors would be able to use your cell phone number even though you didn’t give it to them. They might be able to Google the number or get it from a data broker. They could also call your cell number even if they already have your land line number. It would be their choice, not yours!

“We’re very concerned that the bill would lower privacy rights for the consumer,” she says. “It will open up cell phones to unwanted and nuisance calls.”

Critics say one of the most troubling part of this bill is that it would allow businesses to make robo-calls to anyone’s personal or business cell phone for any commercial purpose — as long as it’s not a solicitation — even if that number is on the “Do Not Call Registry.”

Is a change in the law really needed?

Under current law, a company can make contact you via a robo-call if you’ve given them explicit permission to do that or in the case of an emergency. H.R. 3035 would let them robo-call you on your cell phone if you gave them your number in any situation for any reason.

Visit a store or website and give them your cell phone number and you could get robotic follow-up calls of an “informational” nature. The proposed legislation does not provide a way to opt-out of this system. Business groups say they have no problem with adding an opt-out provision to the bill.

My two cents

I realize that we are switching to a wireless society. But people think of cell phones — where the meter is running every time you make or receive a call — differently than landlines.

If I want to give an airline my cell phone number to contact me if there’s a flight delay, there’s already a way to do that when I buy my ticket. And I can tell my bank to contact me on my cell phone when I’m about to overdraw my account. But this way I control access to my number.

This bill has many flaws. I don’t think Congress should give companies carte blanche to use my cell phone number for automated prerecorded messages. They must be required to get my consent before they can send robo-calls to my cell.

I believe there should also be stiff financial penalties for debt collectors who make repeated robo-calls to the wrong phone number or who continue calling after they’ve been asked to stop.

H.R. 3035 is being considered by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Do you support the Mobile Informational Call Act?

[AriaDesser]

We actually did exactly this at the pharmacy I used to work at. We didn't make any distinction between cell phones and land line phones, but we communicated information to customers if we had their number and a reason to call. Usually it was to tell them to pick up their stuff before 30 days was up. We used an automated system for this and never got any complaints.

[Qnpqbpac]

We actually did exactly this at the pharmacy I used to work at. We didn't make any distinction between cell phones and land line phones, but we communicated information to customers if we had their number and a reason to call. Usually it was to tell them to pick up their stuff before 30 days was up. We used an automated system for this and never got any complaints.

And if they requested you not use their cell number?

[Unrersvar]

Im sure therell be an app on your smart phone that will block this BS.

[Leczyslaw]

We actually did exactly this at the pharmacy I used to work at. We didn't make any distinction between cell phones and land line phones, but we communicated information to customers if we had their number and a reason to call. Usually it was to tell them to pick up their stuff before 30 days was up. We used an automated system for this and never got any complaints.

But in that circumstance, they would have volunteered their cell number and agreed that you could use it to contact them.
This would be comparable to you making random calls, using a service, to your clients, advocating services.

[Aeaefee]

"They'll never be stupid enough to pass a law like that".






http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...playershare_fb

[gugamotina]

[rant warning - you must know my bias by now ]

Why the surprise ^^^ they've been doing this for the last ten years or so - just chipping away at your rights as Americans - just another example of the Right's hypocrisy! While championing the 'reduction of Government interference and control (in their business dealings)', they are hell bent on increasing the Government control, interference and power over the individual!
A sort of Capitalist slant on Stalinism! While a comment about people being woken up in the middle of the night by 'Secret Police' and 'disappearing' is, I hope, an exaggeration, it can certainly happen now if they think you're a person of interest! heck, they have to do something to justify all those 'refugee centers' they built.

Land of the Free? Yeah, right...

[Jimambol]

[rant warning - you must know my bias by now ]

Why the surprise ^^^ they've been doing this for the last ten years or so - just chipping away at your rights as Americans - just another example of the Right's hypocrisy! While championing the 'reduction of Government interference and control (in their business dealings)', they are hell bent on increasing the Government control, interference and power over the individual!
A sort of Capitalist slant on Stalinism! While a comment about people being woken up in the middle of the night by 'Secret Police' and 'disappearing' is, I hope, an exaggeration, it can certainly happen now if they think you're a person of interest! heck, they have to do something to justify all those 'refugee centers' they built.

Land of the Free? Yeah, right...

[yawn]

[egershna]

app.

If there's a buzzword I've hated in the past 5 years it has to be that.
Hell I can even stand "Information superhighway".

[xanax-buy-online.com]

I really don't get having to pay for incoming calls. I know we've had this discussion before, and the Americans couldn't see any problem with it...

If there's a buzzword I've hated in the past 5 years it has to be that.
Hell I can even stand "Information superhighway".

APP!!

[Loolasant]

Did the bill already go through or something? I was woken up minutes before my alarm went off this morning by a robot trying to sell me health insurance, no joke. [thumbdown]

[JesexhiSeeces]

Not entirely sure if it passed in Australia but I remember reading that not only will telemarketers get access to your home AND mobile phones, but YOU will have to pay for the calls (although you didn't make them).

I know some providers already charge you for calls they make TO you.

[Ecurrexchangess]

Not entirely sure if it passed in Australia but I remember reading that not only will telemarketers get access to your home AND mobile phones, but YOU will have to pay for the calls (although you didn't make them).

I know some providers already charge you for calls they make TO you.

As far as I know, that would be the case here as well.

Forget the cover BS about customer service. These are companies looking for new revenue streams, and we will be the ones who pay for their latest scheme whether we want to or not.

Like a lot of people, I find it hard not to feel helpless, angry and abused. Again and again I see tasty tidbits being thrown to business, and nothing but stoney faces and growls about cuts, when help for regular people is mentioned.

The term "Plutocracy" keeps springing to mind more and more as I look at all the many things, big and small, happening all around me.

[yespkorg]

As an aside, after 2 1/2 years, I got my first spam text in the form of a chain letter. Fortunately, we don't pay to receive texts - so far...

[Poll Pitt]

It makes logical sense to treat home and cell phones the same way. I honestly never understood why the law makes a distinction between cell and home.

Did you guys know that not every home phone is free unlimited usage? Measured service still exists in parts of this country.

The FCC is already on a crusade against debt collectors and such who are blocking and spoofing their numbers. Maybe before considering anti-consumer legislation such as this they need to tackle the problems consumers face from shady businesses and implement a system to track and punish them. It's such a hassle because there are so many ways to place outbound calls, like VOIP, and these people don't give a crap about you calling them back.

The best tool you can ever use to fight douchebaggery on the phone is Anonymous Call Rejection. Then all you're left with is dealing with spoofed numbers, which the government needs to do something about.

[alecaf]

It makes logical sense to treat home and cell phones the same way. I honestly never understood why the law makes a distinction between cell and home.

Did you guys know that not every home phone is free unlimited usage? Measured service still exists in parts of this country.

The FCC is already on a crusade against debt collectors and such who are blocking and spoofing their numbers. Maybe before considering anti-consumer legislation such as this they need to tackle the problems consumers face from shady businesses and implement a system to track and punish them. It's such a hassle because there are so many ways to place outbound calls, like VOIP, and these people don't give a crap about you calling them back.

The best tool you can ever use to fight douchebaggery on the phone is Anonymous Call Rejection. Then all you're left with is dealing with spoofed numbers, which the government needs to do something about.

I have never heard of a land-line phone where you pay for inbound calls, unless the operator specifically requests you to accept reversed charges.