Do-not-call list violator nailed
p2pnet news view | Advertising:- Canada’s Do Not Call telephone marketing lists means, ‘Go right ahead and call, and if you don’t know the number, just ask the CRTC and they’ll be glad to supply it for a nominal fee’.
Things do not, however, appear to be quite so laid back in the US.
“The US government and four states sued Dish Network Corp on Wednesday, accusing the satellite television provider of assisting its authorized dealers in calling consumers with recorded telemarketing messages,” says Reuters.
Here in Canada, unbelievably, “the lists from the DNCL registry, run by Bell Canada which is itself under attack for abusing its own customers, and administered by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) can be easily and cheaply bought online from the latter, which recently described the list as an unqualified success,” said p2pnet.
Across the border, calls were made to consumers who’d signed up for the Federal Trade Commission’s national do-not-call registry, says the story, going onto to quote Dish as stating:
“An independent audit demonstrates that DISH Network is in compliance with ‘do-not-call’ laws, has proper controls in place, and is well within the safe-harbor provisions of the law.
“We also believe that the FTC is equating merely doing business with an independent retailer to ‘causing’ or ‘assisting and facilitating’ violations by that retailer. We look forward to resolving these differences of opinion through the judicial process.”
glad to supply it – Telemarketers love Do Not Call List, January 26, 2009
Reuters – Dish accused of violating do-not-call list, March 26, 2009
abusing its own customers – p2pnet traffic shaping digest, April 19, 2008
unqualified success – Do Not Call List a ’success,’ says CRTC, January 16, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 27th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
the US has had a law thats like 10 years ld regarding spam like soliciting for years, they basically brough and modernized the NON net wiht the net back in late 90’s.
We before that had to fight with these spammers head and toe in less then public lil internet wars.
PRON sites are always the worst
March 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
- 80% of Canadians agree that there has been a reduction of calls since signing up to the list.
- US do not call also gves put their list to telemarketers
- The fee for the list from telemarketers helps to pay for the service, which lowers the overall cost of running the service for Canadians
- There is no personal information on the list except the phone number you provided.
- Fraudulent Telemarketers already have the technology to sequentially dial numbers. A phone number isn’t a private secret.
- Scams are on the rise due to recession. This has nothing really to do with the do not call list
- The legislation for the do not call list gives citizens more rights
- The do not call site provides Canadians with a simple vehicle for reporting any telemarketer violating Canadian laws
- There are heavy fines PER REPORTED violation
March 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Your link about Bell allegedly abusing its customers is faulty.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:14 am
Canada’s Do Not Call telephone marketing lists means, ‘Go right ahead and call, and if you don’t know the number, just ask the CRTC and they’ll be glad to supply it for a nominal fee’. Things do not, however, appear to be quite so laid back in the US.
Um, you do know that it’s run the same way in the U.S.?
March 29th, 2009 at 7:20 am
“Um, you do know that it’s run the same way in the U.S.?”
As does the Uk, Australian, and pretty much all other national do not all lists…
March 29th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@John:
Like the CRTC, you make lots of statements, but you don’t QUALIFY any of it, and simply repeat all the same tired old rhetoric.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I’ve had a solution that works for years. I don’t need to supply my phone number for the political machine to grab as eligible for calling through their loop holes. Horror of horrors, I simply unplug the phone. I never get spam calls, I never receive unwanted survey calls and my time is always uninterrupted by a phone ringing during supper. Doesn’t matter that the phone company takes your private unlisted number and sells them to other companies or their employees that have access to that information does.
No matter what it has worked 100%, all the time. I don’t pay my phone bill to be bothered by these idiots. I pay my phone bill for the use I and not they might get out of it. It is not there for their convenience nor is my time open to be wasted by such crap. Telemarketing just does not work with me and won’t. It’s my phone and my right to use it as I see fit. I see fit not to be bothered by these vultures.
March 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
@RW:
While I’m sure many of us feel like unplugging our phones at selected times, that’s not always an option most of us really have. Naturally, it all revolves around our needs, but I also feel it shouldn’t be something we should have to consider.
As you say, we do PAY to have a phone, and rightfully expect a certain compliance we’re not getting from a variety of assholes. We should be able to keep our phones plugged in 24/7 without regret. It should be THEM being inconvenienced by enforceable rules.
Of course, what d’ya expect when the ones running the DNCL engage in the very behaviour the DNCL is supposed to combat?!
March 29th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
For less than a hundred dollars to buy a telephony card and an old computer, one can can setup a system that lets whitelisted calls through while playing the “This number is out of service” (or any other message of customer’s choosing). The free, open source software that makes this possible is called, Asterisk. I use it on my phone line, and I remain undisturbed. Asterisk can do this and so much more
visit http://www.asterisk.org or http://www.asterisknow.org the software can also be used on Windows computers thanks to free virtualization. software.
March 30th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Devil’s Advocate … please explain. I’ve qualified much more that this misguided article. If you have any questions on look up the information, or be specific on what you want more information on. It’s not a secret. Or are you simply angry that someone has a different oppinion than yours?
March 30th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Also, on this: “what d’ya expect when the ones running the DNCL engage in the very behaviour the DNCL is supposed to combat?!”
Have you filed a complaint?!?!?!
March 31st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
PS: Glad to see the links were fixed.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:43 am
@John:
Okay…
REGARDING BELL VIOLATING THE DNCL:
Have I filed a complaint??!
(And I thought you followed this site to a certain degree.)
I, along with thousands of others tried in vain to comunicate with the CRTC through a number of methods.
I have gone as far as contacting Members of Parliament.
One example would be my open letter to Tony Clement, posted on this site without my name.
If were to take any credit for causing the AIC abuse to stop, it would have been because my blogging added to the bad publicity they were getting from the thousands who did the same.
AM I ANGRY WITH DIFFERING OPINIONS?:
I’m not angry with anyone here.
I get angry with Bell, and have good documented reasons for that.
But, I don’t take it out on anyone here.
I do shake my head in disbelief whenever some Bell shill comes on here, making all sorts of defensive statements and/or irrelevant quotes in Bell’s honour, while none of which seem to be supported by anything outside of Bell’s own PR-Propaganda Machine.
UNQUALIFIED DATA:
You’ve posted a number of supposed statistics that don’t seem to have any source, other than similar statements made by Bell and the CRTC, who have not offered supporting data. It’s not qualified just because were being “told so”.
Whatever you’re referring to that’s not supposed to be a secret doesn’t appear to be making headlines, even on the MSM. All I see are disqualifying statements to the contrary.
1) “80% of Canadians agree that there has been a reduction of calls since signing up to the list.”
Who says?! Nobody’s asked me or anyone I know of.
And, we all agree nothing appears to have changed.
2) “US do not call also gives put their list to telemarketers”
(Irrelevant statement #1)
What the fuck does the US really have to do with anything here?
It’s like saying, “if the US makes a serious error in judgement, it’s acceptable in some way to make the SAME error at a later date”.
3) “The fee for the list from telemarketers helps to pay for the service, which lowers the overall cost of running the service for Canadians”
(Irrelevant statement #2)
So what? Marketers are the primary reason for the very idea of a DNCL. They should pay.
Where on this page was something said that needed to be addressed by that piece of info?
4) “There is no personal information on the list except the phone number you provided.”
(Irrelevant statement #3)
Phone numbers are what’s being abused.
5) “Fraudulent Telemarketers already have the technology to sequentially dial numbers.”
This practice was already illegal in Canada before the DNCL.
The practice is also outlined on a new CRTC page about the DNCL rules.
It’s also a practice Bell is guilty of contracting AIC Global to perform.
AIC violated both the existing law and the new DNCL guideline.
Bell has had the capability to deal with this nuisance for quite some time, but feels no compulsion to offer it, as it is more profitable to have things the way they are, and leaves the possibility of announcing it in the future at the right time as another “value service” customers would have to pay extra for.
6) “A phone number isn’t a private secret.”
Inaccurate.
A phone number is not exactly an open invitation to call either.
There are conditions associated with all numbers, depending on “private residential”, “public residential”, or “commercial” classification. All of these classes have abuse boundaries that aren’t supposed to be crossed. Just because a phone number (or e-mail address) is publicly available doesn’t make it “spammable”.
One of those boundaries is unauthorized publication.
Being included in a list, sent (whether intentionally or not) outside the country to any party that would abuse the list, qualifies.
(You give it to a spammer, you’re supposed to be liable.)
7) “Scams are on the rise due to recession. This has nothing really to do with the do not call list”
Scams may be on the rise, but so are technological features!
I mentioned earlier there is the technology to deal with sequential dialing. The same capability can also deal with unauthenticated dialing, such as the variety that reports the source as “000-000-0000″, and could be used to offer individual users the option to null the majority of these calls from even getting through.
If Bell genuinely wanted the DNCL to work, it would have proposed to couple such technology with it.
If Bell genuinely wanted the DNCL to work, it would not have opposed iOptOut.
If the CRTC genuinely wanted the DNCL to work, it would have removed Bell as the DNCL operator for flagrantly disregarding both the DNCL itself, and iOptOut in its own telemarketing campaigns, as the CRTC had already mandated the acceptance of iOptOut.
If the CRTC genuinely wanted the DNCL to work, it would be using the iOptOut database to update the DNCL, as well as demanding all available technology (that would aid in its success) be applied.
Rights are irrelevant, without enforcement, or a working venue for insisting that they be honoured.
Right now, we have neither.
(And, no charges have been laid against abusers to date.)
9) “The do not call site provides Canadians with a simple vehicle for reporting any telemarketer violating Canadian laws”
The only “vehicle” provided is a web form that doesn’t allow the complaint to be properly detailed and filed.
Only multiple choice questions are provided, preventing you from properly outlining the abuse, and preventing you from adding pertinent comments or queries. All “complaints” are taken as “individual” filings, and are not united with other complaints on the same abusers.
There’s no “weight” amassed against even the most obvious abuser, and no action results (as demonstrated by the fact that nobody’s been charged).
The current CRTC abuse reporting mechanism is an insult to the human intelligence.
10) “There are heavy fines PER REPORTED violation”
To date, no fines have been imposed.
Like I said:
- If you’re going to repeat all the rhetoric, at least repeat the propaganda that’s supposed to qualify it.
- I’ve got nothing against a different opinion. Unsupported BS, on the other hand….
April 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
1- take a look at the MRIA survey.
2- RFTA “Things do not, however, appear to be quite so laid back in the US.”
3- RFTA “they’ll be glad to supply it for a nominal fee”
4- is tied to 6.
5- I don’t disagree with that. But it’s not the same thing as the do not call list. It’s an adjunct that would improve it.
6- Explain this one more. What laws are you quoting? How is the publication of the numbers unlawful?
7- I don’t disagree with that. But it’s not the same thing as the do not call list. It’s an adjunct that would improve it.
8- How do you know that no charges have been laid?
9- There are two vehicles. voice and web. Web forms have a freeform section where details can be put in. Why do you think individual complains aren’t aggregated by the CRTC? Where did you get that from?!
10 – How do you know?
April 6th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
PS: I don’t see anywhere in your open letter or in ypur discussions that you ever did lodge a complaint. (an open letter isn’t the same thing, BTW). Tell me, what was the response to your open letter, other than the auto-response? Did Clement see that your claims had any merit? What about the opposition members?
April 6th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
1) MRIA = Marketing Research and Intelligence Association.
Got any results from a “non-partisan” survey?
Naturally, any group that exists to promote marketing wouldn’t serve as a great example.
The fact is, everyone I talk to has expressed disappointment, and to all the right people.
We’re doubtful the majority would be happy.
Even the MSM seem to end up displaying mostly negative comments, as if they’re having trouble finding anything else.
2) & 3) Any comparison to the US DNCL is still irrelevant, which is all I was saying about that.
4) Since phone numbers ARE what’s affected, it’s irrelevant what else is not recorded.
5) There were 3 points made quite clearly…
- autodialing is not a legal practice in Canada
- Bell itself is guilty of breaking that law, as well as a CRTC ordinance which is clearly discussed on their pages.
- the technology in question would have eliminated the need for a DNCL, as it would have provided every individual user with much more elective control, with minimal effort required from Bell, and no CRTC involvement.
6) Republication of the numbers can only be done at the users’ discretion. Official phone directories have implied consent on the “public” numbers. Similar rules exist for e-mail addresses. As mentioned, certain conditions apply to certain classes, intent, and publication methods.
7) iOptOut was mandated as an ENFORCEABLE adjunct by the CRTC, and made that announcement. Millions of people signed up for the service the same day as the DNCL launched (crashing iOptOut’s servers the way they did to the CRTC’s), putting a lot of faith in the combined power.
iOptOut subscribers experienced many unwanted calls from those who received the iOptOut notifications. Many prominant companies were among them, and Bell was the most common violator.
9) If you call the CRTC with a DNCL complaint, they will tell you to fill out the web form.
No freeform section existed when we all tried to use it. The most recent attempt would be a few weeks ago.
Where did you see a basis to the contrary?
10) See #8
April 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
@John:
Re: Tony Clement.
I only referred to the letter as an example of something you could read here that shows I have been active in trying to find some answers to questions many of us have had since Christmas, as the DNCL began to demonstrate failure for many. It was written to Tony Clement because of “bold” statements he made in public on the subject.
His office replied only last week!
The reply was nothing but useless boilerplate, mostly stuff that would have been used to announce the coming of the DNCL in the first place. (Total insult!)
Other attempts were made to various others in the Government, CRTC, and Bell.
I outlined all my concerns and stated I had lodged a complaint using the given method, along with several others, and even outlined why the web from was inadequate.
No reply. (Didn’t expect one from Bell anyway.)
This is standard treatment of the public by all 3.
It is why people like me get on a rant.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Thought you might be interested in this discussion: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-877-767-0751/2
A number of good suggestions and numbers to call for complaining on your issue since you don’t seem to be getting much traction, including:
Call the CRTC at 877-249-2782 on harrassment.
Call Bell’s Executive Office at 866 317 3382 and tell them the calls are being made on Bell’s behalf.
Also, did you actually register your number on the do not call list, or just iOptOut (or neither)? If iOptOut, how do you know iOptOut is working correctly, as promised?
Finally, do you have a business relationship with Bell, or have you cut all your ties from them?
April 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Funny, most people I talk to say it’s working well for them. People have gotten the scams; but again, that’s not related… I do find a lot of mis-information coming from telemarketers though. They’ve got a hate-on for this; which I persoanlly think is good. Also CRTC did a horrible job communicating how the service would work. A lot of people thought it would just be magic without any drawbacks. On the survey; the service is relatively new. There’s only been one scientific survey and that’s it. The media hasn’t been doing any investigation of it’s own really other than what they can see from their web browsers. So unfortunately there’s a lot of hearsay, and not a lot of education on this.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
On iOptOut… it’s enforceable…. but I believe prosecution is still complaint driven, ie from the do not call complaint process… and I think you’d need to show that the company got the message that you didn’t want to get calls anymore. I also think that if you have an existing business relationship they’re still allowed to call you. You might want to check into that.
April 6th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
PS… on distribution from the dncl faq:
“How do telemarketers know my telephone number is on the National DNCL?
Telemarketers are required by law to subscribe to the National DNCL and to download updates to the List. It is their responsibility to ensure telephone numbers on the National DNCL are not called. ”
I’m not sure how anyone could expect otherwise, but a lot of people were confused by this… If you’re saying that the do not call legislation violates people’s rights in this regard, then you might have a supreme court case on your hands.
April 6th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
On the freeform option, it’s been there all along.
file a complaint->continue->
fill in information about your complaint (date of offence, your number, the number displayed/telemarketer name)->continue
click on “Click here if none of the above apply ”
Voila, freeform text field.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:09 am
BTW: you keep saying that millions have registered for iOptOut… I know it’s not a major point, but I think that’s a miscalculation. According to ioptout’s site, they’ve sent out about 8 million “opt out” requests. There are about 50 companies on the list that can be sent to, each one getting an opt out request for each phone number, so assuming most people just select everything (which given the site’s purpose and the likely clientelle is highly likely), that would mean about 160,000 phone numbers. Compare that to the, what, 7-8 million phone numbers that are on the dncl? In fact on Sept 30th, I believe iOptOut got about 1million new optouts, which means Geist probably only got about 20,000 phone numbers when it was going down; not millions as you say…
April 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@John:
I’m now going to reorganize the separate points and try to condense it all.
1) IS IT WORKING?:
By your own words, there isn’t any concrete proof there’s any mass concensus.
By “working”, I mean has it reduced or eliminated unwanted calls.
For others, it may have had some effect, but for me and many of my friends and family, it hasn’t.
I would, however, caution you against such speech as “most people say…”, for obvious reasons.
Certainly, as long as it can’t deal with the scammers, the DNCL is useless in its present form.
I maintain that available technology could have changed this and should have been mandated all along, and that using it could have rendered a DNCL an unnecessary idea.
2) ON “800 NOTES”:
Seen that page, and dozens like it.
P2PNET did a post on the site as well, and I’ve actually interacted with the site owner on some things.
As with all “venting” sites, some suggestions may work for others, but usually don’t, as anyone can see by reading the followups that get posted.
I will point out, on your sample page, the dates of those posts.
That’s going back a full year.
Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that Bell had no idea its own telemarketing campaign was causing such a stir until “only recently”??
3) AM I REGISTERED?:
Of course I am. Why would someone take the trouble to do all my ranting if I hadn’t at least done that??
I registered our ground line with BOTH the DNCL and iOptOut at launch time.
4) PUBLICATION:
I could go into the debate about the way the DNCL is applied – arguing as to why it’s even necessary to publish lists at all, or go as far as to whether (again) existing technology should have simply been applied to the system itself (disallowing the calls to complete) in the first place. But, let’s just make 1 more attempt at clarifying the argument of number publication.
AT NO TIME did I ever say I had a problem with publishing these “update lists” for marketers to download.
My objections were:
- there wasn’t even a half-hearted effort to qualify who was downloading them
- in selling the lists to those that simply wanted working numbers for their telespam operations, the CRTC is guilty of information mismanagement, at the very least, and should be liable for their actions.
- these lists did contain some “unlisted” numbers, adding another mistrust issue to the pile.
I can’t say it any clearer than I did when I said, “You give it to a spammer, you’re supposed to be liable.”
4) IOPTOUT:
Whether 20 people each made 400,000 iOptOut requests, or 8,000,000 people each made 1 request, it still means there were potentially 8,000,000 iOptOut requests made.
Whatever significance you find in the number of “subscribers” would be a separate interest of yours. All I know is, to someone who doesn’t have access to actual subscriber information, what make the impression is that a significant number of people DID JUMP on iOptOut when it was available, and the majority of those that did were doing so on the pretense that the CRTC was going to enforce it and tell Bell to swallow the agreement, which the CRTC announced that it did.
iOptOut is simply a streamlined way of sending that necessary “request” to the exempted parties, which can be done by any individual to any one company at a time the same way. And, it’s all the LAW requires to be removed from the lists of a calling agency exempted by the DNCL, INCLUDING those that “have a business relationship” with you.
Everytime you create or edit your iOptOut list, you get a confirmation from iOptOut when the letters have been sent out to the companies affected, and that list of companies is repeated in the confirmation. I’ve received mine, as did everyone else. There’s no doubt who we selected, and who has been asked to discontinue calling who, and whether or not the request was sent.
Bell got those requests. Bell ignored them, and kept ignoring them.
Bell is the DNCL Operator, and quite aware of the law, and certainly couldn’t have forgotten its own agreement with the CRTC on this matter in such a short time.
Yes, of course, all complaints about those that go against iOptOut need to be made through the CRTC.
And, the CRTC got them, before and after the DNCL implementation. Though, there shouldn’t even be any need for the public to all file separate individual complaints in the first place. The CRTC was completely aware of Bell’s flagrant violation of the agreement between them, as well as AIC’s use of autodialing equipment (which, should have been an even bigger issue). Saying the public needed to do anything else at that point is just denying the obvious.
Personally, I believe there’s no excuse for the CRTC avoiding the obvious questions here
- why shouldn’t iOptOut requests directly update the DNCL?? This would not have been at all difficult.
- why give the DNCL job to Bell, when they’re publicly kicking and screaming with their objections to something like iOptOut?? Even after reluctantly agreeing to honour it, Bell is still challenging its validity. We don’t need that at this stage in the game.
- why all the exceptions in the first place, if the plan was in the public’s interest? The public made it clear long ago what they think of getting calls from them.
5) CRTC WEB FORM:
I went back and recreated a complaint, just to see if any freeform option existed where you said.
It is, indeed, there now. But, I maintain, it wasn’t always there.
Bless their little cotton socks for that!
But, they still need to open their doors much more.
When we tried it in the past, the “other” selection lead to more of a dead-end “multiple choice” strategy that quickly “lead you out the door” and it was game over.
6) CALLING THE CRTC OR BELL:
Do you honestly believe what you’re posting is anything resembling a new idea to people like me??!
Yes, I’ve done it. More times than anyone would ever dream of trying.
Both have long ago created that “black hole” that serves nobody but themselves.
You generally need to know someone on the inside of these places to get a live ear if you’re complaining.
The CRTC was never one for welcoming such calls anyway, but Bell still tops the list of the most insulting and time-wasting companies to communicate with. Interestingly enough, Rogers doesn’t seem to be like that – real people are much easier to get, and they don’t have any “protocols” in place that prevent them from referring you to a real manager, or even the execs, if you ask. Bell, on the other hand, is just this “behemoth of anonymity” that simply refuses to escalate you beyond the “front line”, even at the infamous “Executive Office”, which is, in itself, a curious thing. What’s wrong with straightforward processes, if you’re not trying to hide from your customers or the public?
“…tell them the calls are being made of Bell’s behalf.”
I have no idea what that even means. Geez! If I have to say something like “Rocky sent me”, in order to be “let in”, then I think my point’s already been made.
Same applies to the CRTC Web Form. It’s still deliberately pointed. Most will just choose what seems to be “applicable”, thinking they will have their chance to say something else at some point that puts some weight behind it, only to find that one avenue at the beginning that you outlined was the only place. Things could have been better explained.
And, you’re promised a reply within a certain time frame, but never hear from them.
And, you follow up with an inquiry, you still get nothing back.
No matter how long you wait.
____________________________________________
Not that I mind humouring you, but, maybe at some point, you could offer why you’re so interested in keeping this discussion going the way you are. I mean, do you have any “vested” interest in any of this, that you care to share?
You seem to want to defend either Bell or the CRTC, or just the DNCL itself, by trying to make out that complaints like mine are not justified, or not substantiated, or that not enough was understood or attempted by the public, or who the hell knows what you’re implying.
Whatever the case, you seem to go out of your way to deny there’s been some obvious disservices to the public being done on all this by all involved. And, quoting these somewhat irrelevant “statistics” is just that same old rhetorical way of avoiding any acknowledgement that the people in charge are “operating on their own agenda”, and protecting each other, as they’ve always done, which is really the gist of what I’ve been posting.
If you do, in fact, work for Bell, I would ask why then, given the vast input that these forums give to all the trollers about Bell, does nothing ever change with Bell’s reprehensible attitude toward its customers and to the Canadian Public in general? And, why did Bell want the DNCL anyway, if it’s not interested in applying any of its available technological mechanisms that would have made it really mean something?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
I’m just answering your questions, DA… I could ask the same about you…
April 7th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
1- whatever.. by your own admission things have gotten better… you just claim it’s because of you
2- I have no idea. I don’t think I ever made any statement about that…
3- ok. you never actually said that you did..
4- like I said just a technicallity in what you were writing. You were making claims that didn’t seem to fit the facts. I don’t see why ioptout couldn’t update the dncl…
5- It’s always been there. I used it myself months ago.
6- Honestly… yes, I do. You seem to shoot off the hip, and by your own admission, rant.
And finally.. I honestly don’t think that this is a disservice to the public. Quite the contrary. The disservice is in trying to tear it down.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I see you had two number 4’s. My comment above was for the second number 4.
On the first:
“My objections were:
- there wasn’t even a half-hearted effort to qualify who was downloading them
- in selling the lists to those that simply wanted working numbers for their telespam operations, the CRTC is guilty of information mismanagement, at the very least, and should be liable for their actions.
- these lists did contain some “unlisted” numbers, adding another mistrust issue to the pile.”
I think those are valid concerns. People with unlisted numbers should have been better educated on what they were subscribing to. On the face of it I could see how screening would be a good addition. However, how would you account for all of the small individual businesses that need to check the list, or legitimate international businesses that people wouldn’t want to get calls from? If they just limited to Canadian businesses they could validate, people would probably be pissed off that only Canadian telemarketers were losing jobs, and international callers had goverrnment backing not to be concerned with the list…
Also payment should provide some traceability… I know that could be circumvented; but I’m sure almost any method of filtering fraudulent international businesses could be…
April 7th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“…tell them the calls are being made of Bell’s behalf.”
That was pretty much a bad copy and paste from a post on the link provided, dated Feb 2009. The intention, I believe, was to let the Bell executive know that the company you are receiving calls from are doing it on Bell’s behalf so as to emphasise their liability. However you’ve since said that you’ve done this, and that it apparently went nowhere.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Look, sorry if I’m getting snippy. I’ve been sticking around because you’ve said I’m a shill,
my oppinions are unqualified and my qualifications are irrellevant. I tend to take stuff
like that personally. Look I get it. You’ve got a hate on for Bell. You love Rogers.
I don’t care. I’m just saying while you’re ranting here, you’re doing a disservice to
people. You’re jumping to conclusions and claiming you know things that you don’t.
If you didn’t spot that freeform option you clearly weren’t looking very hard. You
stretched the truth on iOptOut to make your own personal political statements. You
grandstand by making “open letters” without actually putting that information into a
proper complaint. You lambaste me for citing comparisongs to the US model when that’s
what this article is about. You mud sling at anyone and everyone. Bell, CRTC, GC, me
and whoever else. If we take away all the Bell baggage, and conspiracy theories that
you keep bringing into this conversation; there seem to be a couple of major issues…
scamming, and Bell AIC. I don’t particularly care about Bell AIC. They haven’t bothered me.
I try to help you out a bit anyway and you get insulted and insinuate that I’m an idiot, or part of your vast conspiracy.
If you’re right about the abuses your open letter should have focussed on all of the steps
you’ve taken that were ignored. You tell me that you’ve done these things… I find it
hard to believe that if you really made a concerted effort that you would be ignored by
all parties. Unless of course you’ve treated them anything like you’ve treated me.
On the DNCL, there has been a scientific survey done, and 80% believe it is working
for them. You dismiss that for your own personal reasons, and write your articles on
your and your friend’s experience. Fine. Laughably you deride me for making statements
about “most people” when I copied your language, and I’m quoting a legitimate study.
You seemed to say that that the AIC abuses have stopped, but that things are worse.
(”If were to take any credit for causing the AIC abuse to stop, it would have been because my blogging added to the bad publicity
they were getting from the thousands who did the same.” presupposes that the AIC abuses you claim have stopped.)
Whatever. You claim that dncl /crtc/bell is responsible
for providing numbers to spammers, but it’s okay to give the list away. You claim that scammers
are calling people because of the dncl, but all evidence currently points to scammers using
autodialers. You claim that you know that no charges
have been laid without stating the timeframe of how old your information source is
(I’m betting January since that’s when scamming was hitting people, which is several
months ago in a service that’s only 6 months old.). You seem to think that putting a
case against a telemarketer is a quick process. You seem to think that a charge is the only action
that gets kicked off form the complaint process.
Whether scammers got numbers from the list (which there’s no evidence of) or not (which there is evidence of
since people not on the list also got calls… on their cell phones) isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is that they
can call you regardless of the dncl whenever they want; and that they’re doing something illegal by doing it.
PhoneBusters is the organization that deals
with scams. CRTC complaints process works with PhoneBusters. If the dncl is effective in
collecting information for phone busters to close down scams, then that’s a good thing.
Seeing as the scam calls have ceased, I’d say that was effective. Could there be improvements? Always.
That shouldn’t detract from where things are effective, though.
You seem to think that some simple mechanism by Bell would make the dncl unnecessary.
You seem to think that Bell is the only telco in Canada, and could magically make this happen. You seem to think that blocking forged phone numbers
would eliminate the need for the dncl… again mixing up blocking legitimate telemarketting practices with
illegitimate practices/scamming.
If you still think that _I’M_ the one with an agenda, and putting out unqualified information. Fine… keep believing what you believe with all of your conspiracy theories.
You attacked me on an article questioning canada’s dncl by comparing it to the us dncl, for pointing out
flaws in the article (which is the purpose of these kinds of forums); and now in your own reasoning. Perhaps you should learn to take criticism yourself instead
of thinking you can just dish out whatever you want to to whoever you want to.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
@John…
Boy! I go away for a few days, and look what I miss.
I’m not even going to bother arguing about who is really “jumping the gun” or what have you.
I’ll just say:
You want to know why you come across as a shill to me?…
[Case in Point]
“If you’re right about the abuses your open letter should have focussed on all of the steps
you’ve taken that were ignored. You tell me that you’ve done these things… I find it
hard to believe that if you really made a concerted effort that you would be ignored by
all parties.”
If you follow this site to any degree, you’d know none of that applies.
[One example]
It wasn’t just me who couldn’t find the “freeform” part of the CRTC complaint pages.
There were thousands at the time. Which is why I insist the outrage over that probably caused the CRTC to change it a little.
It’s not so much that you argue with me on curious points.
It’s that you continue to insist that I’m exaggerating or saying things that can’t possibly be true, even though thousands of similar complaints are all over the forums and have been substantiated ad nauseum. Just because you *want* to believe something isn’t true, doesn’t make it a lie.
Couple that kind of thing with all the “apples to oranges” arguments you’ve presented in rebuttal to pretty well everything, and the conclusion would have to be either I’m dealing with a shill, or a kid who needs to go back and finish his homework before taking on the big boys.
April 28th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
I can see why you’ve come to the conclusions you have with such an insightful mind.