OT: but helpful-Do Not Call List

The National 'Do Not Call' List was for 5 years of coverage.

I found it helpful.

On Feb. 12th...they will release cell phone numbers too...so...

you have to call this number FROM your cell phone to be on the list. (we
pay if others call us)

We might as well call again from our HOME or other phones that we use.

For us...it's the 'being bothered' that might be important.

The National 'No Call List' Number:

1-888-382-1222


Ron B.

Chicago


This is legit...not a scam or con.

On February 1, Ron B, trying to be helpful, wrote:

> The National 'Do Not Call' List was for 5 years of coverage.
>
> I found it helpful.
>
> On Feb. 12th...they will release cell phone numbers too...so...
>
> you have to call this number FROM your cell phone to be on the list.
> (we pay if others call us)

Sorry, but this is what's called an "Urban Legend." It is not true that
cell phone numbers are to be released.

See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp

and the Federal Trade Commission at:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/04/dnc.htm

Regards,

Steve J

"A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe."
-- Euripides

Thanks, Ron. I was not aware that the cellular thing was going to be a
reality.

--


"Ron B" <Gimel@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6811-45C24678-1042@storefull-3317.bay.webtv.net...
> The National 'Do Not Call' List was for 5 years of coverage.
>
> I found it helpful.
>
> On Feb. 12th...they will release cell phone numbers too...so...
>
> you have to call this number FROM your cell phone to be on the list. (we
> pay if others call us)
>
> We might as well call again from our HOME or other phones that we use.
>
> For us...it's the 'being bothered' that might be important.
>
> The National 'No Call List' Number:
>
> 1-888-382-1222
>
>
> Ron B.
>
> Chicago
>
>
> This is legit...not a scam or con.
>

Dammit!! I think that's the first time I've been had on one of these.

I almost posted a "I can't believe...." and yet I still did! Dammit!

--


"Steve Jordan" <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote in message
news3swh.9399$u92.3377@newsfe16.phx...
> On February 1, Ron B, trying to be helpful, wrote:
>
>> The National 'Do Not Call' List was for 5 years of coverage.
>>
>> I found it helpful.
>>
>> On Feb. 12th...they will release cell phone numbers too...so...
>>
>> you have to call this number FROM your cell phone to be on the list.
>> (we pay if others call us)
>
> Sorry, but this is what's called an "Urban Legend." It is not true that
> cell phone numbers are to be released.
>
> See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp
>
> and the Federal Trade Commission at:
>
> http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/04/dnc.htm
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve J
>
> "A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe."
> -- Euripides
>
>
>
>

Steve Kramer wrote:
> Thanks, Ron. I was not aware that the cellular thing was going to be a
> reality.
>

I missed my friend Ron's initial post on this, but for anyone worried
about this, here's a link that explains what's happening. I fear the
bulk of Ron's post was an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp

Basically the Do Not Call list portion is legitimate however merely
signing up for that WILL NOT keep your cellular number off the wireless
directory which is contemplated by SOME - NOT ALL - cellular providers.
The latter you must deal with directly by contacting your provider.

There has NOT be any plan for a published directory of cellular numbers,
what they plan to do is make a listing available to directory assistance
operators. A fine line perhaps but...

The toll-free number is the correct one to call for placing your numbers
on the Do Not Call list. I've place home, office and cellular numbers
on it and it does seem to have curbed the nonsense somewhat. Not
perfect but typically when one does call and I inform them that they
just called someone on the Do Not Call list they apologize and promise
to remove my number and, henceforth, I don't receive any further calls
from THAT marketer.

As Steve J. and Bob (puzzled2) correctly pointed out...the cell phone
portion is not true.

I usually check with snopes.com but this time...I was given the info
from someone who DOES check. (I guess not, huh?)

The GOOD thing is that the number IS correct.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcam...all/index.html

and...it has worked very well for me during the last 5 years.

Unwanted calls have stopped cold...so I was quick to include a cell.

I didn't mean to trick anyone, I'm sure you know that.

I just didn't want any of us to be bothered.

Like Steve K...I had heard that cells were gonna be given out soon...so
I put mine on.

But...as you can read on the link...cells aren't included.

Sorry again.

Best to all,


Ron B.

Chicago

I also begin my voice mail recording recording on all phones with the
sit.wave tone, the three-tone signal we've all heard that tells a
telemarketer's phone bot that my phone number is bogus. Google sit wave
tone (one source site is http://home.flash.net/~carlton2/sit.wav ),
re-record your voice mail with the sit tone as its lead-in, and your
telemarketer calls should decrease. I did that long before Do Not Call
lists began, and my phone spam dropped significantly. AFAIK, only one
legitimate caller was fooled by it into hanging up before my real
message began.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:0FKwh.21$hD1.1@newsfe06.lga...
: I also begin my voice mail recording recording on all phones with the
: sit.wave tone, the three-tone signal we've all heard that tells a
: telemarketer's phone bot that my phone number is bogus. Google sit wave
: tone (one source site is http://home.flash.net/~carlton2/sit.wav ),
: re-record your voice mail with the sit tone as its lead-in, and your
: telemarketer calls should decrease. I did that long before Do Not Call
: lists began, and my phone spam dropped significantly. AFAIK, only one
: legitimate caller was fooled by it into hanging up before my real
: message began.
:
: I.P.

Ver-r-ry interesting. How did you prefix your phone message with the tone?
Hold the handset close to a speaker before recording your own announcement?

Ken Bland

Justin Case wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> news:0FKwh.21$hD1.1@newsfe06.lga...
> : I also begin my voice mail recording recording on all phones with the
> : sit.wave tone, the three-tone signal we've all heard that tells a
> : telemarketer's phone bot that my phone number is bogus. Google sit wave
> : tone (one source site is http://home.flash.net/~carlton2/sit.wav ),
> : re-record your voice mail with the sit tone as its lead-in, and your
> : telemarketer calls should decrease. I did that long before Do Not Call
> : lists began, and my phone spam dropped significantly. AFAIK, only one
> : legitimate caller was fooled by it into hanging up before my real
> : message began.
> :
> : I.P.
>
> Ver-r-ry interesting. How did you prefix your phone message with the tone?
> Hold the handset close to a speaker before recording your own announcement?

That was cumbersome, so I just set the phone at my elbow on speakerphone
and accessed my voice mail greeting setup. When the voice mail setup
beeped to record my greeting, I quickly clicked on the sit tone icon,
let it sound the three notes, and *immediately* spoke my greeting. The
resulting message was exactly what I wanted, as though I had directly
electronically dubbed the sound. (Ya gotta turn off "American Idol"
first if ya don't want screeching sounds or Simon's voiceover in the
background.)

The emphasis on *immediately* above is to reduce the odds that a live
caller has time between sit tone and my voice to hang up thinking my
phone number is invalid. In the years I've been doing this, I'm aware of
only one caller hanging up too quickly . . . my colon cancer
endocrinologist. Oops!

I.P.

I.P. Freely wrote:
> I also begin my voice mail recording recording on all phones with the
> sit.wave tone, the three-tone signal we've all heard that tells a
> telemarketer's phone bot that my phone number is bogus.

We simply bought one of these: http://www.telezapper.com/, which does
the same thing even if you answer the phone manually. However, since
we added ourselves to the FTC's Do Not Call list, we no longer use the
gadget, because we get very few marketing calls.

There are equivalents to the Do Not Call list for old-fashioned mail:

https://www.optoutprescreen.com/
http://www.dmaconsumers.org/offmailinglist.html

--
Peter Headland

"Peter Headland" <PHeadland@excite.com> wrote in message

> We simply bought one of these: http://www.telezapper.com/, which does
> the same thing even if you answer the phone manually. However, since
> we added ourselves to the FTC's Do Not Call list, we no longer use the
> gadget, because we get very few marketing calls.
>
> There are equivalents to the Do Not Call list for old-fashioned mail:
>
> https://www.optoutprescreen.com/
> http://www.dmaconsumers.org/offmailinglist.html
>
> --
> Peter Headland

We don't get commercial telemarketing calls anymore, but the charities are
just as bad and not affected by the "Do Not Call List". We give to a large
number of charities, and I gather many of them sell your names to others.
However, what you can do with them is get the name or employee number of the
caller and request to be put on *their* "Do Not Call" list. By federal law
they have to take you off.

Claude wrote:

> the charities are
> just as bad and not affected by the "Do Not Call List". We give to a large
> number of charities, and I gather many of them sell your names to others.
> However, what you can do with them is get the name or employee number of the
> caller and request to be put on *their* "Do Not Call" list. By federal law
> they have to take you off.

They get a five-tone turnoff -- "We give at the office" -- plus a "put
us on your do-not-call list". The vast majority of telemarketing
charities, especially the police and firemen fund appeals, are scams or
near-scams.

I.P.