Do Not Call List violater begs for mercy
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- Canada’s Do Not Call list is a mockery. The CRTC, which runs it, is a mockery. Bell Canada administers it, a terrible mockery, and to add insult to injury, telephone marketeers are able to actually buy copies of the list for a nominal fee.
The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television & Telecommunications Commission) touted the list as a lifesaver for Canadians fed up with receiving unwanted marketing calls.
Instead, the intrusive sales pitches kept on coming and despite thousands of complaints, only two violators were found —-
—- and getting the CRTC to name them was probably the worst mockery of all.
Eventually, after keeping their identities secret, it named Peerless Mason Ltd (twice) and Rob Sugar as the knowing transgressors.
And now Sugar has, “filed with the CRTC to have them reverse the cost award and to reverse their ruling,” says a p2pnet Reader’s Write
After non-stop pressure, back in August posted an item slugged CRTC fines three telemarketers and the entry for him in its What`s New web page under `Telecom said »»»
- 2009-522 Violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules Administrative monetary penalties on Rob Sugar File number: 8665-C12-200601626 â- In this decision, the Commission imposes administrative monetary penalties totalling $4,000 on Rob Sugar for fax telemarketing telecommunications initiated on his behalf to consumers whose telecommunications numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call List, in violation of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules.
But in a September 11 letter to the CRTC, “In Feb 2009 I received a warning letter from the CRTC about Fax Broadcasting and complying with the DO NOT CALL LIST,” says Sugar, continuing »»»
I subscribed to the DO NOT CALL LIST in March 2009 and purchased numbers for the 416, 905 and 647 area codes.
I spoke with Wendy McLintock a number of times. In one of those conversations, she said that it was understood that I would be given a grace period to allow me to update our lists.
Further down, “during another conversation, I told Wendy that the DO NOT CALL LIST was very large and requested a separate list for just fax numbers,” he says.
He was told no such list existed, he says in his letter, going on »»»
After a careful review of the processes needed to update our database Mundesley, I decided to stop faxing permanently and to continue having faxes sent for me by a third-party company known as Poldom Communications. I informed Wendy that Poldom Communications would be faxing on my behalf.
Poldom Communications informed me that they were in compliance with the CRTC DO NOT CALL LIST.
I had no further communications CRTC after that point, because I had stopped faxing.
Sugar goes on to say he didn’t know he was being investigated until August 26 when he was contacted by the media.
“The next day,” he tells the CRTC, “there was a significant amount of media coverage about the ruling and the fine. The coverage significantly effected [sic] my business both financially and professionally. I contacted Wendy McLintock immediately to find out what was going on.”
He adds, “since I stopped faxing soon after purchasing the DO NOT CALL LIST in March 2009, I am respectfully requesting that you remove the fine imposed.”
Interestingly, Poldom is a Bell Sympatico customer.
Say tuned.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
September, 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.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
hahahahaha
Only on P2PNet
September 29th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
is this dickhead related to infamous asswipe alan sugar?
it sure sounds like he is.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
LOL the fed-ex parcel just magically disappears after his next door neighbor signs off for it.
Yup.
When I get parcels that I have no clue about I tend to say I’m a contractor working in the house and make up a name and sign for it.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Boo hoo, cry me a river you fucking loser, autodialing telemarketer, asshole!
September 29th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I remember tracking an annoying autodialer that would call everyday, and it led to Peerless Mason. Finally some justice for me!
September 30th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The part about the FedEx parcel has the same flavour as the popular “dog ate my homework” defense.
Whether or not this guy was genuinely unaware of the CRTC parcel, he was still perfectly aware of all the complaints from scores of people asking him to STOP. These complaints, documented earlier in the game, came directly to him, which he answered by hurling insults and basically telling them all to fuck off.
Logically, if he was paying a third party to handle his fax marketing, while getting bombarded with complaints, he must have at some point been motivated to discuss the matter with that third party. After all, the activities of this third party were already “significantly affecting [his] business both financially and professionally”.
Personally, I’m getting sick of the constant use of this “third party defense”.
Many high-profile corporations, paying some dirtbag to send their spam from his mother’s basement, seem to have gotten off the hook over the years because of this completely nonsensical excuse. Hiring another party to do your bidding doesn’t dismiss you from responsibility. YOUR company’s name is all over it, and YOU’RE paying them to act for YOU.
Certainly, Poldum should have been fined as well, and for a higher amount and followed by further investigation, as they’re making a business out of sending faxes for others, while not adhering to the DNCL. As for Sugar, he should be grateful his “negligence” didn’t earn him a bigger fine, and just go after the company that used his money as a resource to soil his (questionable) reputation.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:20 am
This guy fell afoul of the CRTC DNCL. He then hires another telemarketing company to send faxes on his behalf. The token gesture that the company he decided to work with saying they adhere to the DNCL. If he was serious about adhering to the CRTC’s DNCL then he would have gotten a business contract stating such AND that they would be liable for any fines incurred while working on his behalf. Instead it was probably a handshake and a winkwinknudgenudge agreement to tacitly ignore the DNCL.
I’d LOVE to see this apply to ALL companies big and small, not just this one guy. I’m sick of Rogers and Fido and shit phoning me up to try and sell me shit.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:23 am
You are right – the DNCL result is indeed a mockery, but it is possible that you are unaware of just how much of a mockery the CRTC itself is. The entire DNCL process was marred by CRTC suppression of evidence, violations of their own Rules of Procedure, gag orders on the broadcast media (under threat of losing their broadcast licenses), and even hate crimes against Canadians – all committed by the CRTC in their haste to silence public criticism and put corporate interests ahead of the public good. You can read some of the sordid history here: http://home.cogeco.ca/~publicnotice/CanadaDNCL.html complete with audio clip evidence of the CRTC’s suppression of expert testimony from other countries, and the CRTC referring, on the public record, to anyone who objects to telemarketing as a “terrorist”. Disgusting.
The DNCL could have been inexpensive and effective. Instead we are saddled with a wastefully expensive system which indiscriminately distributes our confidential telephone numbers to foreign telemarketing scumbags, and burdens small Canadian businesses with unnecessary costs – all intended to drive them into the arms of the large contract telemarketing interests. In this last respect it is identical to the Gun Registry. It punishes only those who abide by the law. Meanwhile, the telcos hire ex-CRTC Commissioners on a regular basis – there was, in fact, one such hiring during the DNCL proceedings. The telcos that provide CRTC Commissioners with their next carreer then demonstrably receive favoured treatment. Disgusting.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Here’s a direct link to evidence of the CRTC coverup: http://home.cogeco.ca/~publicnotice/files/Exhibit2.wma
This was recorded during a working session of the CRTC DNCL Operations Working Group, and is typical of the kind of coverup that is still going on. The CRTC was told on multiple occasions that their downloadable DNCL would be a disaster, but they chose to break the law and cover up the evidence instead of building a simple system that works, using readily available technologies and database techniques. Canada used to be a leader in telecommunications. We are now a worldwide joke because our government bureaucrats are spineless, greedy, self-serving lawbreakers.
October 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
I’ve always thought mass marketing by fax is a really stupid way to advertise anyway. The people that do it know they’re one of hundreds that are doing it simultaneously and collectively running out everyone’s toner and paper (or expensive thermal paper). Not exactly the best way to get other businesses to like you.
Wherever I worked, I always rerouted the fax line to a computer and installed WinFax or similar to handle them. The junk faxes were deleted, and the legitimate ones that were left got printed. All anyone had to do was preview what was there, print what they wanted, and delete it or move it to a folder I gave each of them, should they need to have keep it around.
Most people found that wasted less time than digging through a pile of junk faxes, phoning up people to see if they did or didn’t send something, and reloading the machine with supplies all the time. And, they were both happy and pleasantly surprised with how much money they weren’t spending on faxes.
With the amount of junk faxing services operating 24/7, I can’t believe more businesses aren’t doing this now. If not that, then get a fax machine that has a receive memory that is used in a similar way. At the very least, they should be shutting off the fax when the office closes (since most of the garbage comes in overnight).
October 12th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Sadly, as long as one person answers, they will keep doing it. The best way to stop telemarketers is to cost them money.
When there’s time, my husband loves to string telemarketers along. A couple of unproductive half hour calls wises them up pretty quick. We used to get calls from a duct cleaning company, 3 or 4 a week. Same one, they didn’t have a list, they just had poor schlubbs calling out if the phone book. We tried telling them that we didn’t have ducts. They still called. We tried telling them not to call. They still called. Finally my husband said sure, come on over tomorrow. When the truck load of duct cleaners showed up we explained we had no ducts (electric baseboard) like everyone else in our subdivision. They were mad, and they left. The next time they called I allowed them to browbeat me into an appointment the next day. An hour later I got a call from a supervisor who was furious at us for wasting his companies’ time. We only got one or two accidental calls after that.
Nowadays spam is the same. Our family has a hard and fast rule: NEVER give money or buy anything to ANYONE who calls us. Or emails us. No matter how worthy the cause. Even if we need it. If we need it WE seek them out. If everyone else did it telemarketing and spam would stop.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Mr.Sugar is a dishonest individual and the statement about the fed ex package just disappearing does not surprise me one bit. He will do anything to pass the buck including tell untruths. What amazes me that he can claim he was unware of a problems but he had over 300 complaints about his faxes- come on people let’s wake up and see what this man is really about. I have requested on at least 6 different occasions to have the faxes stopped but they kept coming. I think he should consider himself lucky with a $4000 fine because I think they should revoke his liscence to run a business. Mr.Sugar you talk about Good karma and even have a facebook page set up devoted to good karma but here you are sending out bad karma to the universe and it’s starting to come back and bite you in the rear end. Pratice what you preach sir and maybe things will start to turn around for you.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Latest updated…..Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-711
Ottawa, 20 November 2009
Application to review and vary Telecom Decision 2009-522 regarding violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules by Rob Sugar
File number: 8662-S89-200912916
1.
The Commission received an application by Rob Sugar, dated 11 September 2009, requesting that it review and vary Telecom Decision 2009-522. In that decision, the Commission imposed administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) totalling $4,000 on Mr. Sugar.
2.
In his application, Mr. Sugar requested that the Commission remove the imposed penalty, submitting that he had not received adequate notice about the violation. Mr. Sugar submitted, for example, that a neighbour had accepted delivery of the 6 July 2009 notice of violation (the notice) on his behalf at Mr. Sugar’s address, and that the package was never brought to his attention.
Background
3.
On 6 July 2009, the Commission issued the notice to Mr. Sugar pursuant to section 72.07 of the Telecommunications Act (the Act). The notice informed Mr. Sugar that fax telemarketing telecommunications had been initiated on his behalf to consumers whose numbers had been registered on the National Do Not Call List (DNCL), in violation of Part II, section 41 of the Commission’s Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules (the Rules).
4.
Mr. Sugar was given until 5 August 2009 to pay the AMPs set out in the notice or to make representations to the Commission with respect to the violations.
5.
However, Mr. Sugar neither paid the AMPs specified in the notice nor made representations in accordance with the notice. Accordingly, pursuant to subsection 72.08(3) of the Act, Mr. Sugar was deemed to have committed the violations outlined in the notice and the Commission subsequently issued Telecom Decision 2009-522 imposing AMPs totalling $4,000 on Mr. Sugar.
Criteria to review and rescind, or vary Commission Telecom Decisions
6.
In Telecom Public Notice 98-6, the Commission outlined the criteria to consider review and vary applications filed pursuant to section 62 of the Act. Specifically, the Commission stated that applicants must demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision, due to one or more of the following: i) an error in law or in fact, ii) a fundamental change in circumstances or facts since the decision, iii) a failure to consider a basic principle which had been raised in the original proceeding, or iv) a new principle which has arisen as a result of the decision.
7.
The Commission interprets Mr. Sugar’s submission as an assertion that there was an error in law in the original decision resulting from a denial of procedural fairness prior to the issuance of the decision.
Is there substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision?
8.
The Commission notes that Commission staff had been in contact with Mr. Sugar by telephone, email, and mail for several months prior to issuing the notice, and had informed him that he could be subject to a notice of violation and an AMP if he did not comply with the Rules.
9.
The Commission further notes that Commission staff forwarded the notice to the sole contact address that Mr. Sugar had provided when he registered on the National DNCL. Commission staff successfully used this address when communicating with Mr. Sugar prior to the issuance of the notice. Finally, a Preliminary Investigation Report, the notice, and Telecom Decision 2009-522 were all accepted and signed for at the same address.
10.
The Commission finds that the process leading to Telecom Decision 2009-522 was procedurally fair and provided Mr. Sugar with sufficient notice and opportunity to participate fully. Accordingly, the Commission finds that Mr. Sugar has failed to demonstrate that there is substantial doubt as to the correctness of the original decision.
11.
In light of the above, the Commission denies Mr. Sugar’s application.
Other matters
12.
The Commission notes that the AMP of $4,000 imposed on Mr. Sugar in Telecom Decision 2009-522 continues to accumulate interest calculated and compounded monthly at the average bank rate plus three percent from 25 September 2009. The AMP is payable on the total amount including interest and will accrue during the period beginning on 25 September 2009 and ending on the day before the date on which payment is received.
13.
As part of its collection activities, the Commission intends to certify the unpaid amount and register the certificate with the Federal Court.
Secretary General
Related documents
Rob Sugar – Violations of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules, Telecom Decision CRTC 2009-522, 26 August 2009
Guidelines for review and vary applications, Telecom Public Notice CRTC 98-6, 20 March 1998
This document is available in alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site: http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Footnote:
1 Part II, section 4 of the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules provides that a telemarketer shall not initiate a telemarketing telecommunication to a consumer’s telecommunications number that is on the National DNCL, unless express consent has been provided by such consumer to be contacted via a telemarketing telecommunication by that telemarketer.