Yes, of course, but that wasn’t the point I made.

iOptOut was simply a mechanism for people to do, en masse, what they’re legally entitled to do about the exceptions – send proper notice to all of those excepted to be removed from their call lists, regardless of exception status. It was then incumbent upon Bell and the CRTC to honour these requests by enforcing them.

Bell is the OPERATOR of the DNCL, and yet the one who put up the biggest formal resistance to iOptOut. Even though the CRTC supposedly mandated iOptOut’s acceptance, Bell thumbs its collective nose at iOptOut by both ignoring complaints associated with it, as well as being the biggest violator of it. (As reiterated in the above article.)

This matter, which is what I was referring to, doesn’t seem to have surfaced since.

If the designated DNCL operator itself won’t honour a simple, legal tool as iOptOut, what hope in hell do you have of anyone else honouring any part of the DNCL legislation?

Not only Bell but many many charities and other organizations.

I know of one “entity” who received thousands of iOPTouts (not Bell). The ignored them last year. This year, no clue.

The last I heard, Bell itself first put up resistance to the installation of iOptOut, challenging its applicability, the CRTC mandated honouring this site’s agenda, and then Bell (who we need to remember IS the DNCL operator) ignored it anyway. I asked Michael about this quite some time ago, and he said there where things happening, but that he wasn’t in a position to talk about it. So, not to interfere with what he was doing, I stopped all the writing I was doing to my MPs (not that any of it was doing any good anyway), along with a few other activities on the subject, and waited for a sign from Michael.

Michael?!…